Talk:Scotch-Irish American/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Novels

This discussion has moved to a Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-27/Irish American. Please express opinions there.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Historians and literary scholars use novels, fiction and film to show the images of ethnic groups. Cardon looks at how Mitchell--in the most famous by far of southern novels, relates Irish Catholics, Irish Protestants, Scotch Irish and French together in conflict and cooperation in antebellum Georgia. Cardon especially emphasizes how intermarriage (or refusal to marry) created unity and distance among the ethnic groups. She stresses that Mitchell's novel has a counterpoint between Catholic Irish in Savannah and protestant Irish on the frontier, with Atlanta becoming the melting pot that makes them all Southerners. Other novels have also been studied this way--for example, the "Last Hurrah" about Boston Catholics and Protestants, as well as Faulkner. As far as Cantrell is concerned, several critics have blasted his work on Celtic culture in the old country, but they have mixed praise for his work on Civil War novels, which is the topic here. Rjensen (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) It's silly to use a 1936 work of fiction to draw any sort of insight into the Scotch-Irish of two centuries earlier, or even of their descendents of 1860. If you are an academic, shame on you. You should know better. Better to stick with solid references about these people. Better still, you need to jump in your car, head to Pisgah, Alabama, and get yourself a supper of cornbread and beans. You might learn something about the Scotch-Irish legacy that way. Reference to Gone With the Wind is off topic and anachronistic, whether its a direct reference or anachronism by proxy. By the way, the topic here is not "Civil War novels". Eastcote (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Not to mention WP:Review. Unless, of course, the purpose is to show how something is percieved by a particular author or artist - that would be something else entirely. Important works of fiction have contributed to and influenced history, that's true (take, for instance, Uncle Tom's Cabin), but the how and why of that has to be revealed in a sholarly way through peer-reviewed work, not WP:Primary as the work of fiction itself would be in this case. Shoreranger (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC) "silly" says Eastcote. That's a personal view--apparently of a gourmet who recommends eating rather than reading. What do the reliable sources say? the scholarly journals have thousands of articles using novels to study how events and people are perceived, depicted and remembered. Eastcote can please reveal the RS he uses to supports his case for not using one of the most dffamous novels in American history. He can just name the book or article he relies upon and we can move on. In this case the scholarly article in peer reviewed journals is the base of the text and Wikipedia considers that a highly desirable Reliable Source. Rjensen (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Just cite the peer-reviewed sources, then. Refering to novels directly is not only referring to a primary source - which is not Wiki standards, it is also not peer-reviewed - likewise not Wiki standard. We're beginning to cover the same ground here... Shoreranger (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC) My main objection to the novels bit isn't that they aren't referenced properly. It's that they are irrelevant to the topic. If this was an article about the civil war, or even about the South generally, then the content might be relevant. But this is about the Scotch-Irish, and the relevance is questionable. What I would accept as relevant to this article would be to drop all the oblique references (Cantrell, Cardon), and address directly the McWhiney-MacDonald "Celtic Thesis", since that's where these passages point to anyway. I would do this succinctly, without letting it take over the article, because the "Thesis" is based in large part on the Scotch-Irish element in the South. That makes it relevant. I would then also add what critics have to say about the "Thesis". I do not adhere to the Thesis, and personally think it's wrong, but many people have read it and bought into it, and perhaps it should be addressed. Thoughts anyone? But I would leave all that civil war novel stuff out because it is just plain irrelevant to this article. Eastcote (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC) SHAME--please stop using nasty words in the discussions. Novels -- especially GWTW--havde shaped the images and memory of the Soctch Irish and other groups (and GWTW pays very close attention to ethnic and religious interactions). A section on the Celtic Thesis would itself be a good idea, but that is not primarily what the civil-war- section deals with. (it's mentioned in a half-sentence) Rjensen (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Did I miss something? What nasty words are you talking about? GWTW is pretty irrelevant in talking about the Scotch-Irish. By the 1860s, these people were no longer Scotch-Irish, but were Virginians or Georgians or North Carolinians. Certainly they were of Scotch-Irish descent...we know that now, but they didn't then. They were Americans. For a Civil War section it would make more sense to include info about the Unionism in areas of heavily Scotch-Irish descent such as West Virginia, East Tennessee, Northeast Alabama, etc. Those mountain areas were, as one Yankee put it, a Union wedge deep into the South. Eastcote (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC) The nasty words signed by Eastcote were " If you are an academic, shame on you. You should know better." That's pretty low attack on a fellow editor. Anyway personal opinions about events 150 years ago are not at issue. The question is what reliable sources say. Eastcote assumes that 1) all the Scotech Irish arrived before 1775; (that's false) 2) the colonial element vanished into generic Americanness after 1800 (partly true for some). But what about the million+ Scotch Irish who arrived after 1783--they deserve a presence here as well.Rjensen (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Oh, now this really IS bizarre. Scholars are pretty much unanimous that the Scotch-Irish period of immigration was 1717 to 1775. Later Protestant immigrants from Ulster were NOT Scotch-Irish. Different time period, different settlement pattern. You are trying to re-write history for some reason of your own. It's like trying to say that ALL immigrants from Germany, in whatever time or place, were Pennsylvania Dutch. The most cited authority on the Scotch-Irish, James Leyburn, has this to say: "Migration from Ulster, interrupted by the Revolution, began again thereafter. ...These later comers, however, did not seek out Scotch-Irish communities in their country of adoption; they went instead to whatever places economic opportunity offered the best chance for making a home... No doubt they, too, made their contribution to American life, but they did so as individuals, not as members of a Scotch-Irish community." And the colonial Scotch-Irish themselves ceased to identify themselves with Europe by about 1800. Again, Leyburn says, "There is little doubt that children of the Scotch-Irish were among the vanguard of pioneers in the newly opened region west of the mountains... This generation of pioneers, however, was a generation of Americans, not of Englishmen or Germans or Scotch-Irish. ...Emphasis on Scotch-Irish origin - or upon any other national origin - was never a characteristic of the people who moved west; neither did the annalists of the time call attention to it. ...If the frank questioning of a newcomer asked who a man was, his answer was almost sure to be 'A Virginian', or 'A North Carolinian'; under no circumstances would it be 'A German' or 'A Scotch-Irishman'. Only near the end of the nineteenth century did Americans, with a growing consciousness of their history, develop the research into the distinctiveness of contribution by national groups... For most of the century that intervened between the migration from Ulster and the period after the Civil War the very term 'Scotch-Irish' does not appear." Please, please, drop this bizarre agenda of yours and get in line with the overall scholarship on these people. Later Protestant immigrants from Ulster settled generally as individuals in the Northeast and Midwest, and uniting them with the Scotch-Irish in the South is historically inaccurate and irresponsible. To again use a German parallel, the Germans settled heavily in North Carolina in the 1700s, but to argue for a united German front with German immigrants in Wisconsin of 1880 would be just plain weird. Eastcote (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Leyburn has littleinterest in the millions Scotch Irish who arrived after 1770s and he is provides very little information on them. Other historians provide a gfreat deal of information. Where the arrivals of 1800 (say) settled became a NEW Scotch Irish settlement. Is there wome law that said they MUST go to the historic locations if they wanted to keep their religion/culture identity? That would be odd. The Germans who arrived in Wisconsin in 1880 are indeed very differen from the Germans who arrived in colonial era. Scholars call both groups German Americans. Better read Jones (1980) and you won't make ridiculous statments like "Later Protestant immigrants from Ulster settled generally as individuals in the Northeast and Midwest." (source please) All migration historians stress the central role of chain migration based on living close to relatives and friends from the old country. Jones (1980) for example points out that new immigrants after 1800 made Pittsburgh a major Scotch Irish stronghold. Look at Thomas Mellon; he left Ireland in 1823 and became the founder of the famous Mellon clan, which is still powerful to this day. Don't overlook Jones and Laughlin Steel. As Greg Barnhisel notes p 48, The Laughlins remained part of the "Scots Irish ruling stratum of Pittsburg society." John Ingham, The Iron barons (1978) has a whole book on how the Scotch Irish dominated the iron and steel industry nationwide (he says the industry was "largely Scotch Irish" p.7). Ingham says the Scotch Irish "developed their own sense of uniqueness." (p 228. Likewise Chicago was a major center--for example the Chicago Tribune was founded and owned by Scotch Irish Joseph Medill while the SI Wilbur Storey owned the other major newspaper. The Presbyterian Church was a major factor in Chicago, not to mention Presbyterian Hospital. As far as being "in line with the overall scholarship" I have cited dozens of recent scholarly studies while Eastcote depends mostly one one old book that ends in 1790 and was published in 1962--Leyburn is good but time moves on. Much of the best research appears in articles but Eastcote has never cited a single scholarly article -- of any date.Rjensen (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC) The Scotch-Irish period of immigration is agreed to be roughly 1715 to 1775: Fischer and Kelly, "period of 60 years (1715-75)"; Leyburn, "between 1717 and the Revolutionary War"; Williams, "between 1700 and 1775"; Rouse, "1718...through many decades of the eighteenth century"; Webb, "1715 until the American Revolution"; Kennedy, "between 1717 and the American Revolutionary War"; Blethen and Wood, "between 1717 and 1800"; Campbell, "18th century"; Griffin, "between 1718 and 1775". The Scotch-Irish settled on the frontier of Britain's colonial empire. By 1800, their children and grandchildren were off on their own, becoming Americans in the Carolinas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and points west. It is true that immigration of Protestants from Ulster continued after 1800. Immigration tapered off after the Revolution and was steady but small until it picked up again in the "famine years" and on through the rest of the 19th century. These newer immigrants after 1800 faced a different set of circumstances and came into a new, industrializing country, the United States. And these newer immigrants, as your own citations show, settled in New York, Pittsburgh, and Chicago - cities in the Northeast and Midwest, far from the great mass of the descendents of the Scotch-Irish of a century earlier. The new immigrants were Irish Protestants for a generation, and then their children, too, became Americans. Sure, many of the new Protestant immigrants were Ulster Scots, cousins of the Scotch-Irish, but they developed their American identity separately. They were not "Scotch-Irish" as scholars generally define them. Eastcote (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Rjensen, I have requested that this article be included in the currently ongoing mediation regarding your edits of the Irish American article. [1] I respectfully request that you make no further edits to this article until some disposition is determined. You are quickly making this your article, and anyone who disagrees with you is ignored. Not good for a consensus-based community. Eastcote (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

All disputes regrading the content on this page should be diverted to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-27/Irish American. It has been added there. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Name

The most common name of these people is Scots-Irish, not Scotch-Irish. Abductive (reasoning) 12:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You should probably read some of the "Talk" archives, and look at some of the cited references in the article. This has been discussed at length before. Shoreranger (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Question is, why was this change made without any discussion? I might happen to disagree with the notion that "Scots-Irish" is most common (which is demonstrably not the case in scholarship), but I disagree more with changes such as this being made without any discussion at all. Same thing happened over in the Ulster Scots People article. Now how to we go about undoing this? Eastcote (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I looked at the talk page above, and saw consensus for Scots-Irish, or at least no consensus for Scotch-Irish. I tried to weigh all the disparate threads. I saw no lengthy discussion, and no archives. The article history showed a move to Scots-Irish American with an explanation, but with no log entry for the move back. Scots-Irish is an American usage, which should be no problem since the article is on Scots-Irish Americans, but this should not be extrapolated to whatever they are called in Europe. As for which is more common, one has to take vernacular and scholarly usage by Americans, for Americans into account. The article itself says that the use of Scots is more recent than Scotch, but the 1972 mention in a dictionary is by no means the earliest attestation. So, if one asks what is the most common recent vernacular usage in the United States, my answer is Scots-Irish. Now, maybe I am wrong about that, does anybody have sources? Abductive (reasoning) 04:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Scotch-Irish is exclusively an American term. It is not used in Europe. Sources tend to point to the historical usage of Scotch-Irish as giving more weight to that term, and to the notion that "Scots"-Irish is a newer term used to accommodate modern Scottish usage. As an American term, the traditional, historic American usage of "Scotch" is preferred. That's the consensus that was reached here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AScots-Irish_American&action=historysubmit&diff=207129454&oldid=207129312. Eastcote (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved back to Scotch-Irish American per consensus reached 21 April 2008. Eastcote (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

All you linked to was the move. I see no consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 16:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you look further on in the page, there is discussion in several places about naming. The move to Scotch-Irish was made following this exchange: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AScots-Irish_American&action=historysubmit&diff=207129454&oldid=207129312#Scotch_vs._Scots. But there are various other discussions with rationale for Scotch over Scots. Eastcote (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Each of those discussions has proponents of both points of view. Abductive (reasoning) 21:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hillbilly

First, this is not an article about the term "hillbilly". There's already an article for that. Second, the "Billy Boys" story is only one of several apochryphal origin stories for the term. It appears in many places, but is never traced to period use except by circumstantial conjecture. Credible historians give it no credence. Anthony Harkins, in Hillbilly: Cultural History of an American Icon, doesn't even mention it as I recall, and Michael Montgomery, in From Ulster to America: The Scotch-Irish Heritage of American English, finds it to be almost certainly incorrect, as the term didn't even appear till 200 years after King Billy was long gone. This is discussed in the Hillbilly article, and it needn't be repeated here. Eastcote (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Celtic Thesis

From the article The recent "Celtic Thesis" of Forrest McDonald and Grady McWhiney denies the history of their descent from Northumbrians of the Scottish Border Country and northern England; instead these authors maintain that they were basically Celtic (as opposed to Anglo-Saxon), and that all Celtic groups (Scots Irish, Scottish, Welsh and others) were warlike herdsmen, in contrast to the peaceful farmers who predominated in England. Author James H. Webb puts forth a thesis in his book Born Fighting to suggest that the character traits of the Scots-Irish, such as loyalty to kin, mistrust of governmental authority, and military readiness, helped shape the American identity. So, if a person comes from Northumbria, they are Anglo-Saxon, yet if they came from over the border in Scotland, they are Celtic? Was this the finding of a thesis?? If so, it cannot have been written by a very intelligent person. This inclusion in the article seems jumbled and doesn't make much sense. It should be re-written and waffle about 'Anglo-Saxons' and 'Celts' needs to be removed. Enzedbrit 20:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

when the leading scholars --McDonald and McWhiney--report a conclusion then Wiki follows their lead. Rjensen 20:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Their conclusion is wrong as they misunderstand the terms 'england', 'scotland', 'welsh' and 'northumbria'. The celtic tribes were effectively pushed north of the forth-clyde line by the romans who built the antonine wall in the second century ad. After the roman collapse, tribes that had integrated with the romans were joined by waves of successive colonisation south of this point - angles, saxons, vikings, and celts including the 'scots' themselves from ireland.There is no way a clear split can be made between the ethnic groupings now milling around south of the antonine wall as the populations blend, as in the centuries between then and the norman invasion of england, kingdoms such as northumbria, strathclyde and rheged grew and withered in the area where the border between modern england and scotland now lies. Thus, each of these kingdoms covered parts of modern northern england and southern scotland, with rheged for example a welsh cumbric-speaking kingdom, whilst northumbria was an angle kingdom and strathclyde a brythonic-speaking kingdom. The normans then ended the fun by conquering england, and moved the border with scotland north to its current position, enforced by kings in battle and not by a vote based on demographic preference. As such its not difficult to understand that trying to differentiate between scots and english on a 17th century border in terms of 'celticness' is futile. 'Celticness' can really only be attributed to ireland and parts of northern scotland, and even then the vikings had numerous footholds along the coasts. CarlisleBorderer 23:20, 26 September 2006

The Votadini of Lothian (otherwise known through Welsh poetry as the Gododdin)and the Damnoni of Strathclyde remained south of the Antonine Wall and were as Celtic as any Welsh speaker in Wales would be today. In fact Carlisle is of Celtic etymology and the Cumbric language of Cumbria, Strathclyde and parts of the rest of North West England, may have clung on into the early Middle Ages (and be the root of the surname "Wallace" as this derives from the Scots term for "Welsh"). 92.235.167.172 (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Rjjensen but even the lowland of Scotland aren't "Celtic". Furthermore, Jim Webb is by no stretch of the imagination a "leading scholar" as you say and for than matter neither are McDonald or McWhiney. At no point during the colonial period did "Celtic" people ever form a majority, nor even a plurality in the American South, and despite the fact many people in the last twenty years have claimed this to be the case, that does not make it so. There is no serious academic scholarship that claims so, only para-professional revisionists, period. Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

John Hancock

The citation provided for the John Hancock reference was very cryptic: "Unger 'John Hancock' Wiley, 2000". Not very convincing. From what I've been able to glean, John Hancock's parents and grandparents were from Massachusetts. He was orphaned and adopted by an uncle. His immigrant Hancock ancestor was his great-great grandfather, Nathaniel Hancock, who was born in Lancashire c. 1600 and died in Massachusetts in 1652. On his mother's side (Mary Hawke), his immigrant ancestor was great-great grandfather Matthew Hawke, who was born in Suffolk c. 1610 and died in Massachusetts in 1684. Who were Hancock's Ulster ancestors? Not saying it isn't true, but the statement needs to be properly referenced. Eastcote (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

no surprise many false claims occur antony wayne of an anglo iris family originally from englan living in sw irelan, union general pillip serian of iris or ol englis ancestry, stonewall jackson anlican ancestors from englan, etc

Ulster

I wanted to point out, that in America, Scots-Irish is used collectively for Scots and Irish. Geneologically, there is not much difference. I can not comment on Ulsterman, but such distinctions don't matter in America. All decendants of a Gaelic tribe that left, fled or was forced out of Ireland or Scotland or Britian at some point. I personally have ancestry from Northern Ireland and Ireland and relatives from Scotland and Scots-Irish is just a less confusing way of saying things that doesn't seem to raise any hackles. In early 20th and late 19th century cencus records, Irish is generally used, because there wasn't always a "Northern Ireland" as a disctinct country. My point is that I see a great deal of northern/southern irish/british tension in this which, as it now refers to the USA, has no place. Wiredrabbit (talk)

Sort of a belated reply, but as this comment was placed at the top of the page, here goes. In America, Scotch-Irish is NOT used collectively for Scots and Irish, and it is not "a less confusing way of saying things that doesn't seem to raise any hackles". The term raises plenty of hackles. Irish are Irish, Scots are Scots, and Scotch-Irish are a whole 'nuther fish. It is erroneous to say they were all Gaelic tribes that were forced out of Ireland and Scotland. The Irish and the Scottish Highlanders were Gaelic, but the Highlanders also have significant infusions of Norse and Norman ancestry. Lowland Scots are a mixture of Celt, Norse, Anglo-Saxon and Norman. Significant areas of the Lowlands were once part of the Saxon kingdom of Northumbria, and by the 17th century Lowlanders were culturally and linguistically little different from their English counterparts south of the border. The Scotch-Irish are descendents of mainly Borderer Scottish and English tenant farmers who had been relocated to Ireland during the 17th century Plantation of Ulster. About a quarter of a million Scotch-Irish arrived in America in the 18th century, settling mainly in the Appalachian Mountain region. I agree that a lot of present day "Irish/British tension" surfaces in discussion of the Scotch-Irish, which has no place in reference to the modern USA, but it is not because these people are all really the same. Genetically, 20,000 years back, they were mostly the same. Genealogically, 500 years ago, they were very different. In between the prehistoric genetics and the medieval genealogy, a lot of historical, linguistic, cultural and political changes made them different. Eastcote (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"but the Highlanders also have significant infusions of Norse and Norman ancestry."

So do people in Dublin, Waterford and Wexford. Does that make them a seperate people as well?

Kobashiloveme —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC).

“The term is also misleading because some of the Scotch-Irish had little or no Scottish ancestry at all”?

You may wish to read up on the plantation of Ulster as this is completely inarticulate!!!!!! Originally it was to be 50% English and 50% Scots. Most of the English (and Scots) were wiped out in the 1640s Irish rebellion. The Scots parliament (not English) then sent 10 000 soldiers to quell the unrest. 200 000 Scots settlers would then head to Ulster and if you were to read up a little you would find the majority of the Ulster Scots heading to the new world were only in Ulster for a few generations having came from lowland Scotland (not northern England!!!). Modern day Ulster Scots (living in Ulster) have 95% Scots ethnicity and the other 5% is actually more German and French huguenot than English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.35.93 (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

" by the 17th century Lowlanders were culturally and linguistically little different from their English counterparts south of the border. " um not quite, Galloway was still speaking Gaelic. Also Scots were a lot poorer in comparison w Englis w less rigts, it was an effect on Scot culture, one major reason for many more Scots going to Ulster. Also Irish people have significant infusions of Norse and Norman ancestry. "Lowland Scots are a mixture of Celt, Norse, Anglo-Saxon and Norman. " culturally possibly but genetically overwelmingly native pre celts.

"You may wish to read up on the plantation of Ulster as this is completely inarticulate!!!!!! " ummm I believe you mean inaccurate, like your suggestion "Most of the English (and Scots) were wiped out in the 1640s Irish rebellion." You ignore more settlement by Englis post civil war. "the majority of the Ulster Scots heading to the new world were only in Ulster for a few generations' absolutely correct, many only 1 generation some being calle s-i not even anyone born in ulster [revolutianary general stark for instance] most of america's s-i little connection to events of te 17t century.

'Modern day Ulster Scots (living in Ulster) have 95% Scots ethnicity and the other 5% is actually more German and French huguenot than English. ' now you're being riiculous you are also ignoring a signifigant percentage of native Irish, ol englis ancestry. sorry my keyboar is going —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.207.98 (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

also i will mention early settlers were from te borer area but later settlers cae from various parts of scotlan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.207.98 (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Scotch vs. Scots

There are few occaisions when the word "scotch" is used. It can be used to describe scotch whiskey. It should never be used to refer to people. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch as of Oct 07, 2006: "From the early 19th century Scots or Scottish increasingly became the preferred usages among educated Scottish people, Scotch being regarded as an anglicised affectation. In modern usage in Scotland, "Scotch" is never used, other than as described in the following paragraph for a short list of articles; it has patronising and faintly offensive connotations ...".

I don't understand why on earth the spelling "Scots-Irish" is being used in this article when the article itself states that "Scots-Irish in America have used the spelling Scotch-Irish almost exclusively since the 18th century...."? Why is an article about an American topic apparently written from a UK perspective? I am of Scotch-Irish descent and I have NEVER seen the spelling "Scots" used in this context before coming to Wikipedia, and have not seen any evidence that it has become widespread in the USA. In my opinion Wikipedia's sensitivity towards the supposed offensiveness of the word "Scotch" to the Scottish people has gone a bit too far, especially in trying to "correct" the historical usage of the term "Scotch" outside of Scotland itself. At what point do we give a group--in this case, Scotch Irish Americans--permission to determine what to call themselves? If it is to be truly NPOV, Wikipedia has no business telling them how to spell their own name. MrDarwin 14:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article should be "Scotch-Irish", with a short note explaining that UK usage is "Scots-Irish". "Scotch-Irish" is how we, the people of this culture, refer to ourselves. My mother's family (born and bred in the mountains of North and South Carolina) is both well-educated and well-aware of their roots and history; they have always referred to themselves as "Scotch-Irish". I never thought anything of the term until I met my wife, whose mother's Canadian family is of Highland Scots origin. I was very surprised when she criticized me for using the term "Scotch-Irish" instead of "Scots-Irish".

I have a lot of respect for Scotland, Scots, and Scottish culture, but I resent people telling me that I shouldn't use the term "Scotch-Irish", a term which has been used by my family since the 18th century to describe themselves, simply because it doesn't abide by the rules recently established in a land they left hundreds of years ago.Esbullin 15:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And this Canadian of ScotCH-Irish decent agrees as well. CanadianMist 15:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree -- the correct term is "Scotch-", not Scots-", Irish. We've been Scotch-Irish for many years. Don't change it on us.--Eastcote (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like consensus - I'm going to move back to Scotch-Irish American now. --JWB (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And just to seal the deal, I note that on the website of the Ulster-Scots Agency, headquartered in Belfast, they translate their name into Ullans as "Tha Boord o Ulster-SCOTCH!". So there is an example of "Scotch" referring to the people in the Scotch-Irish "mother tongue". Eastcote (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really puzzled by all these people who are righteously "insulted" by the use of the term "Scotch". I think it has already been established that "Scotch"-Irish has been in use since the 1700s, and "Scots"-Irish has only been around since about 1970. Most Americans of Scotch-Irish descent probably were not even familiar with the concept until the past 30 years or so. I know my own grandparents knew nothing of it, and as far as they were concerned they were simply "American". So how could anyone be so "offended" by the term "Scotch"? No one has been "proud" of being "Scotch" or "Scots" Irish until recently, simply because they were no such thing -- they were Americans plain and simple. The term "Scotch" was use by scholars to describe these people, and not by the people themselves -- but they didn't describe themselves as "Scots", either. The Scotch-Irish were just one root of the people who populated America. There are no purely "Scotch-Irish" living today. The people of the Appalachian Mountains, where the Scotch-Irish dominated settlement, are not purely Scotch-Irish. There were many Germans, English and Welsh who settled in those mountains, and anyone from the mountains today is most likely a composite of all those ethnic groups. So -- if I were a betting man, I'd bet that those who are deeply "insulted" by the term "Scotch" are probably those born after 1970, when people began to look for a non-American origin for these people. I recommend that before we go changing the term from "Scotch", the traditional term, to "Scots", the new term, in this article, I'd bring it up in discussion first..... Eastcote (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's Scottish people who currently live in Scotland that find the use of the term "Scotch" rather than Scottish or Scots offensive. Which I think is the perspective of the first person to comment in this section. Since it seems this is a term used mostly in the USA to describe where families originate from, and it seems it was a term invented by the people themselves as a self-description (to distinguish themselves from later Southern, Irish-Catholic immigrants), it seems it would be revisionist and innaccurate to retrospectively apply 21st century feelings to the ideas of these 18th century people. - PaulHammond (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

However 'Scotch' is the term used by native speakers of Scots in Ulster to describe their language and their cultural affiliations. I wouldn't change the term but perhaps there is scope for a link to a page called 'Scotch' which would outline the changes in usage and how it has lead to a mismatch between usage in Scotland and Ireland/America. EoinBach (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So, it seems that just because someone, a few hundred year, didn't get it right and because it is commonly mis-used, that we now have to accept it? Surely, on eof the points of educationa nd history is to correct a mistake? Just because wikipedia is American-English centric, the rest of the world has to accept the American definition?

I've just done a check.. even your own universities are using Scots-Irish. And as for "simply because it doesn't abide by the rules recently established in a land they left hundreds of years ago", it's not recently as noted. It was a few hundred years ago and that land is England which, funnily enough, is where English comes from. Why do the rest of us have to put up with America ruining a perfectly good language? Siobhanellis (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The powers-that-be at WP, especially the American Jim Wales, bend over backwards to accomodate other varieties of English than American, andhave instituted the policy of WP:ENGVAR to support other varieties on articles related to their nations or cultures. All they ask is that other varieties show the same respect towards the American variety in return on American related articles. If you can prove from published reliable sources that "Scots-Irish American", not simply "Scotch-Irish", is the accepted term now in the US, then by all means submit that proof. If it's truly is the common American usage, then it should be the article's title. - BilCat (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Regional or national pronunciations, dialects, usages, and accents are not "mistakes". What variety of English is "standard English"? Is it London English, Glasgow English, Belfast English, Ottawa English, Melbourne English, or Chattanooga English? There is room for all. Eastcote (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My father had heard from his ancestors and family who came from East Tennessee to Iowa in the 19th century before the Civil War that his paternal line was Scotch-Irish. He repeated this to me as a term he had heard but did not understand. As I have looked into our family's genealogy, who the Scotch-Irish are has become clear. I find that I have this ethnic group on both sides of my family tree, since information on ancestors from my mother's side also designates a line of the family as Scotch-Irish (pronounced so).

While contributing to a WP article on one of these ancestors I entered the term Scotch-Irish into the text only to have it edited to "Scots-Irish." I changed it back, and it was similarly edited again. Finally, I have changed it to Scotch-Irish again and made it link to the "Scotch-Irish American" article.

In researching certain aspects of the article about my ancestor, I found that in the late 19th century there was a society called The Scotch Irish Society of America which held congresses with some regularity and published sizable books about their proceedings and membership. These, my encounters with the term "Scotch-Irish," --besides the evidence in this talk page and the article it references-- are convincing to me that Scotch-Irish is the term used in America to designate this ethnic group.

Advocates of Scots-Irish might argue that the usage has changed; what is Scottish should now be designated Scots.... Whereas we might want to allow the change because some people, especially the Scots themselves, feel strongly about the matter, I believe it would be anachronistic to adopt the newer term. The evidence shows clearly that "Scotch-Irish" is the term by which these people identified themselves and by which they were identified in 18th- and 19th-century America. We should not change the term that designates them as an ethnic group for a term that only specifies their provenance. Dvdmoore (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the following editorial comments added by User:Scaffietadpole:

"Scotch-Irish" is offensive to Scots as Scotch is a drink, Scots are a still proud nation. Only the English and Americans insist on using the term "Scotch", Scots people would never refer to themselves in this way."

We are not advocating the use of the word "Scotch" to refer to people who live in or are from Scotland today. The term used in this article is "Scotch-Irish American", not Scots or Scots-Irish, and "Scotch-Irish American" is what these people have historically called themsevles, and is the term in use today in the US for this people group. I'm am sorry that people who now live in Scotland find offense in the term "Scotch" as used in "Scotch-Irish American". However, as an American of partial "Scotch-Irish American" decent (also Scottish, Irish, and German), I find it offensive for someone from Scotland to trying to tell me what I can or cannot call myself. User:Scaffietadpole, what if Americans decided that "Scots" was offensive to us for whatever reason, and that only the term "Scottish" should be used for people from Scotland. Would you change just to please us?? I sincerely doubt you would even care what we think, just as you don't care now! - BilCat (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge with "Scottish American"

How exactly are Ulster Scots an ethnic group? They are directly decended from the Scottish. They have the same names, culture, language, religion. They are simply Scottish people living in Ireland. They cannot generally be told apart. I for example have a Scottish surname in my family history, but can I tell weather I'm Scottish or "Scotch-Irish"? No. They both have the same names, linage and they're both Protestant. What I propose, is that we have "Scotch-Irish Americans" redirect to Scottish Americans and a have a large section devoted to the Ulster Scots who migrated to North America. Please consider and discuss. Thanks! sbrianhicks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC).

Just as African American is one, or Indo-Fijian. If a group that share a heritage stay in a new place long enough they tend to develop a new, distinct culture, related to that of their forebearers but still distinct. What you suggest already exists in part as Category:American people of Scots-Irish descent is a subcat of Category:American people of Scottish descent, but Scottish people and Ulster-Scottish people are (documented as being) two distinct ethnic groups. Mayumashu (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mayu - would you not consider the Scots-Irish Irish, as that is their origin, not Scotland? Ancestors of these people may have been predominantly Scottish, but they can only be Scots-Irish by their association with Ireland, not Scotland. In addition, many Scots-Irish have northern English roots, not Scottish, as discussed in the article. Shoreranger (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the facts; Scots-Irish aren't Irish and they aren't Scottish. They are an ethnic group in their own rights, and there are plenty of sources to back this up. There will be no merge. Abductive (reasoning) 12:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Scots-Irish" considered themselves Irish enough to identify themselves as Irish when they first came to America and set up Irish fraternal organnizations. Are the Vikings descendents in Dublin,Waterford and Wexford Scandinavian-irish?

kobashiloveme —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

well many are also of Iris ancestry plus te term been in misuse in america for centuries to simply meamn a protestant of [any] Iris ancestry. also religion in ni is now your nationality/ancestry te 'native' Iris mentione in te article being massacre on ratlin islan were in fact mconals of scot ancestry but becauuse tey were catolics were not consiere 'scots Iris'. sorry my keyboar is broken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.207.98 (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Secondary Sources

This section has a number of judgmental comments about sources: "best place to start" "out of touch with scholarly literature after 1940" etc. Hardly WP:NPOV. Clean up? --Albany45 (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I think so too. I think analytical/critical comments on specific sources could be useful, but they should be the opinions of scholars rather than Wikipedians. The Scottish Historical Review [2] is an academic journal that has reviews of books on Scottish history, it might be a good place to find good comments on a few specific books.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Clean away. Eastcote (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Scots-Irish

I've just about always seen this term written as "Scots-Irish" not "Scotch-Irish". Add in the fact that "Scotch" is properly only supposed to mean whiskey and not an ethnic group, as opposed to "Scots" being another adjective for Scottish used in certain situations, and it seems that this article should be changed to Scots-Irish American.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spettro9 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

scotch-irish are scottish and irish mix

scotch-irish people are descended from scottish families who moved into northern ireland and intermarried with irish families in fact most scotch-irish names are both scottish and irish they are of no english descent what so ever in fact research indicates this as truth so in conclusion i opt that we change it to scottish and irish families rather then english and scottish families —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.7.1 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your unsourced edits, which had been made at an earlier date and were also at that time reverted. Origin of the Scotch-Irish is well documented. Eastcote (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

they do have irish ancestry

they do have irish ancestry i know they do because its well documented in family oral history in addition to dna and historical evidence shows that they have irish ancestry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.7.1 (talk)

It's not about your particular family. This is an article about the Scots-Irish as a whole. No doubt some individuals had Irish, English, or some other intermarriage as well as Scottish, but if you are claiming that for the group, you need to provide a reliable source. --Albany45 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

well its not just in my family if anything they have more scottish for sure becuz the scottish were there forefathers but they hav small traces of english and irish as most are descended from lowland scots who migrated to northern ireland and mixed with irish and english ancestry i have found many reliable results —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.93.105 (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Albany45 - The Scots Irish coming from the Border Country had a significant number of Anglo-Saxon and Norse ancestry. They were not just primarily Scottish. I do, however, agree with you about not including Irish ancestry. Sure, there were probably a few Irish here and there that somehow got mixed in with the Scots Irish, but they would have been very much an almost invisible minority. --Saukkomies ^talk 17:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Validity of the term 'Scotch-Irish'

The term is widely used in respected academic studies, without any apparent 'insult'. See this Google Scholar search and Google Books search. Hope this puts an end to the misguided edit war. RashersTierney (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Further, when looking at the corpus of books written in English the term Scotch Irish is far more prevalent. Please see this comparison. The one argument that I would make is that there should not be a hyphen because the comparison shows that the version without the hyphen is the prevalent term. In that case, the common name policy applies. Suggest moving article to Scotch Irish American.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

More: When looking at the British English works, it seems apparent that the term was once popular and holds as much usage as the Scots Irish variant. Comparison in British English.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Scotch Irish is the more commonly used term, but I think it a little premature to delete the portion concerning its primary use in America, based on a Google search. It seems to be in far more common use in America. Leyburn states it is "unknown" in Ireland. I have seen other refs that indicate almost strictly American usage. I will dig them out. Eastcote (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on "Scotch" says "The modern usage in Scotland is Scottish or Scots, where the word "Scotch" is only applied to specific products, usually food or drink,". Unless you are planning cannibalism, you cannot eat or drink "Scotch-Irish". Therefore the terms Scottish-Irish or Scots-Irish (with or without hyphen), should be used. Just because a term is widely used in America doesn't make it acceptable in the context of an international encyclopaedia.188.220.247.113 (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I really have to say as a Scot I stongly believe the word "Scotch" should not be used. While I wouldn't view it as an insult, I would quickly correct anyone who used it. I think a good comparison is the use of the word "colored" to refer to black people. It doesn't matter if it's still a widly used word in certain places. It doesn't matter if the people who use it are using it without intending insult (As some of the older generation used to). It doesn't matter if the term colored is used by older organisaitons like NAACP. It's an unacceptable word to use. I know many will think it's OTT to compare Scotch to a word like Colored, but I think there are a great many similarities. Some black people of an older generation may even refer to themselves as colored just as some Scots-American might say Scotch-American. So I'd suggest that "scots-" should be the primary word with "Scotch" treated about the same way as you would "colored" on a page referring to black people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.223.185 (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been batted around quite a bit on this talk page. While I am sensitive to usage of the word in Scotland, this article is not about the Scots. When I refer to the Scots, I call them Scots. When I refer to the Scotch-Irish, I call them Scotch-Irish, and no insult is intended as it is not pejorative to refer to the Scotch-Irish in this way, even if it might be so to refer to the Scots as Scotch. Both Scots-Irish and Scotch-Irish are acceptable to use, although the most prevalent term has been Scotch-Irish, which is why this page is titled as it is. Even in vernacular Scots as sopken in Ulster, where the Scotch-Irish originated, the term used is Scotch. See The Ulster-Scots Agency - or Bord o Ulster-Scotch - website. Usage is usage, and usage in Scotland is different than in other parts of the world. If we were always going to change language to conform to the "mother" country's currently preferred usage, then there would be no American or Australian English, no Québécois, no Afrikaans, no Pennsylvania Dutch, and no Mexican Spanish. Eastcote (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe at the very least I would like to see the first paragraph tweaked to say that modern-day Scots would never use the term and may even be insulted by it (Well maybe insulted is a strong word but it'd never be used as an acceptable word). It does say something like that in the last sentence of the current first paragraph, but maybe not strongly enough. Similarly in the Terminology section it's almost written as if Scots would just have a preference for "Scots" whereas the vast majority would probably say it's out and out the wrong word. While I know it's not Wikipedia's place to set the world policy on the use of language, I do think that anyone who was interested in this particular article would want to know this and choose for themselves what term they might like to use.

Especially relevant when you look down at all the comments here as an example and see what happens when you call a Scot Scotch. "Scotch-Irish Americans" might like to know this before they visit the mother country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.70.89 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As always, we should observe WP:NPOV - describe matters as they are, not as we might wish them to be. "Scotch-Irish" is in use in many circumstances, while Scots (may) find that usage objectionable. --Albany45 (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. But that doesn't exclude my suggestion that how objectionable the word is seen by some should be emphasised at top and prominent. I think this is reasonable even though I'm sure many Scots would argue for the word removed from the title and virtually eliminated if they were aware of this article's existence. That's also an important part of "how matters are" and is probably an important thing any reader should know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.209.197 (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)