Talk:White-shoe firm

Archives (Index)

2011 2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

The remark about elites being “white Anglo Saxon Protestants” is inflammatory and impertinent. The generic socioeconomic identity of “the elite” in America is a matter of common knowledge, and emphasizing it in this article accomplished little. What is the purpose of the remark? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.29.35.178 (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Irish American =/= Roman Catholic.

In the usage section it says, "Most white-shoe firms also excluded Roman Catholics, such as Irish Americans..," which implies either that all "Irish Americans" are Catholics or that "Irish Americans" were specifically excluded from these firms. Both interpretations are factually incorrect.

Regarding religious identity, it's been known for decades that most Americans who identify themselves as "Irish American" are Protestant rather than Catholic.[1].

Secondly and more importantly, this phraseology is particularly awkward in light of the fact that several of these white-shoe firms were founded by Irish Americans, and also hired Irish Americans. For example, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. was started by an Irish linen merchant and his sons. Sullivan & Cromwell was co-founded by Algernon Sydney Sullivan, the great-grandson of an Irish barrister from Cork. Hogan & Hartson was founded by Frank J. Hogan, while Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP was co-founded by James Byrne - both so-called Irish Americans (Harold J. Gallagher, another Irish-American who also got his name on the firm, was a partner). Willkie Farr & Gallagher was also one of the first major law firms to hire a female associate in 1939, namely Mary MacDonough, who also had an Irish background (see firm history).

I recommend changing this phrase to something like "excluded Irish Catholics" or "Irish American Catholics" rather than just "Irish Americans". Since this line was sourced mostly to dilettante journalists writing in publications like the "Washington Examiner" rather than professional scholarship, this shouldn't be that big of a deal. Or you could simply not single out specific ancestry groups at all, which really serves no encyclopedic purpose. I would just write that these firms had a habit of excluding Roman Catholics and leave it at that - a simple and self-explanatory statement.Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jonathan f1 (talk · contribs) This is a sensible suggestion. I've implemented the change. Why didn't you WP:BOLDly do it yourself? XavierItzm (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the last time I decided to get bold on here it resulted in an article space edit block, so I can't edit articles at the moment. I'm supposed to be learning a lesson by practicing the collaboration process with other editors on talk pages.Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)