Talk:Scotch-Irish Americans

Removal of text and edit warring

Removal of the following unreferenced speculation has been reverted twice. It needs to go.

Other occupants of the White House said to have some family ties with Ulster include presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, James Monroe, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.

Could those reverting its removal give their reasoning here?--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Just about every President (JFK would be an exception) would probably have "some" Scotch-Irish ancestry because that ethnic strain was present in such large numbers from such an early point in the country's history, and has become so thoroughly absorbed into the American mainstream. The Scotch-Irish did not constitute a distinct group after their first very few years in America, if even then. 70.233.134.48 (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

References? I'm not sure this is true, for example, of many New Englanders, who had rather "pure" English forebears.--Albany45 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think in a general sense it is true that the Scotch-Irish became "thoroughly absorbed into the American mainstream" and "did not constitute a distinct group after their first very few years in America", but when speaking of specific people, references are definitely needed. Eastcote (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Scottish, Irish, and Scotch-Irish Ancestry

Giving American census figures for those who identified "Scotch-Irish" ancestry is a given. Giving the figure for those who identified "Irish" or "Scottish" ancestry in the census is iffy. It could be misleading, because some who identify "Irish" might be of Scotch-Irish ancestry, and some might not be. Some who identify "Scottish" might be of Scotch-Irish ancestry, and some might not be. If giving the numbers for "Irish" it makes sense to give the numbers for "Scottish". It is not irrelevant, although in both cases it could be misleading. What are we trying to say with giving these numbers?

Perhaps the best way is to give only those numbers who identify as "Scotch-Irish" and leave it at that. The problem is that Americans of Scotch-Irish descent don't really know which way to turn to develop a "foreign" ethnic identity. Most don't care to, and identify as just plain "American", sticking to homegrown country music and NASCAR. But some are seeking some "old country" roots. There are those who emphasize "Irish" and listen to Irish music, celebrate St. Pat's Day and wear green and all that. Then there are others who emphasize "Scottish" and wear tartan, play bagpipes, watch "Brave Heart", and hold "Highland Games". See here [1], and [2]

Back in the 1700s, they physically came to America from the land that is Ireland. But culturally they were from north Britain, primarily the Scottish Lowlands, and to this day their cousins in Ireland identify as Ulster "Scots". Are we to say in America they were Irish, but in Ireland they were Scots? Eastcote (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Scotch-Irish" is a subset of "Irish." "Scottish" is not. When talking about census responses, those who choose to self-identify as "Scotch-Irish" could just as easily self-identify as simply "Irish", as they are included in the broader group. The converse is not true - those who self-identify as "Irish" cannot all honestly self-identify as "Scotch-Irish", as the larger set cannot fit into the smaller sub-set. Similarly, all those who self-identify as "Scottish" cannot self-identify as "Irish" - they are not subsets of the same whole. It is misleading to include census numbers on Scottish responses as they are not all included in the category of "Irish", but including census numbers of "Scotch Irish" with "Irish" is not misleading because it is a subset of the latter.

On seperate note - anecdotally I have not found that anyone who dresses in tartans or participates in Highland Games to consider themselves "Scotch-Irish", but simply "Scottish." I have encountered people who celebrate their "Ulster Scots" heritage, which - I was under the impression - was settled on this discussion board and elsewhere to definitively be accepted as included people who are NOT originally Scottish, since the Plantation of Ulster was comprised of settlers from all over the island of Britain, and that the term "Scotch Irish" recognized a strong Scottish influence over the Plantation culture that resulted, and is a convenient term to use, but not to the exlusion of the other contributing communities from Britain that also comprised the Plantation Settelers. Shoreranger (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is quite a complex task, sorting out who the Scotch-Irish were, and who the Ulster Scots are. It is not as simple as saying they are a subset of "Irish". You say they are Irish, others say they are Scots. Being of Scotch-Irish ancestry myself, I could just as easily pick "Scottish" as "Irish" if I wanted to shop around for an ancestry. Many of my people came from Scotland, via Ireland. Am I to say my ancestry is Irish or Scottish? Settling in Ireland didn't make them Irish, just as settling in America a couple generations later didn't make them Cherokee. They were Scotch-Irish, a whole different fish.

An interesting parallel are the Afrikaans people of southern Africa. The primary settlers at the Cape of Good Hope in the 1600s were Dutch, but they were joined by French Huguenots, German Palatines, and even a few Scots. They were referred to as "Cape Dutch" up through the early 20th century, even though many were not Dutch in origin. Similarly, the Ulster Plantation was settled in the 1600s by primarily Scots, but with English, Flemish, French Huguenot, and German Palatines joining them, and the shorthand is Ulster Scot/Scotch-Irish though many were not of Scottish origin. In both situations, what bonded these groups together was their common Calvinism: Presbyterianism in the case of Ulster, the Dutch Reformed Church in the case of the Cape. Regardless of national origin, they became one people. Certainly, the Cape Dutch called themselves "Africans", and the Ulster Scots called themselves "Irish", but this was not because either group became the same as the people they found already living there. The identification with both Africa and with Ireland was an identification based on geography, rather than ethnic affinity. (And as I mentioned above, the same holds true for us calling ourselves "Americans". That doesn't mean we have become the same as the Iroquois or the Sioux).

But, more to the point, to me it makes more sense to leave off both the Irish and Scottish census numbers. As you say, it is misleading -- in both cases. Eastcote (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we might need to seek a third, non-partisan, opinon on this. Shoreranger (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not that my opinion is any more weighty than the next person's, but I put my vote toward NOT including the Scottish or Irish numbers in the count. The Scots Irish were not just Scottish - they came from a mix of Scottish, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse (who arrived both from the Irish Sea and from the Danelaw). People continue to confuse the Scots Irish with Scottish and/or Irish nationalities, but they are a group unto themselves. Just as African Americans are not African (indeed, some African Americans have more Irish blood than people who go around making a big deal about their Celtic ancestry on St. Patrick's Day), the Scots Irish do not belong to another nationality. I would say to err on the side of caution and not just come out boldly stating that self-reported census statistics regarding ancestral lineages to Scottish or Irish ancestors is as empirical as it might seem... --Saukkomies ^talk 16:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The default pictures (upper right-hand corner)

Hi everyone! I had a quick suggestion but didn't feel comfortable editing the page without having an immediate solution. Ulysses S. Grant is not Scots-Irish. In fact, he's not Scot nor Irish. His earliest kown ancestor was from SW England (Matthew Grant born 1601) and his DNA signature suggests Anglo-Saxon roots. I know this for fact as I am related to him and my DNA as well as 4 other people who share the same ancestry as U.S. and I have had there DNA tested. However I don't have a suggestion for a replacement picture, hence my note and no edit. gigrant74gigrant74 (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Grant is Scotch-Irish through his mother's side, the Simpsons. DNA isn't really a reliable indicator of "ethnic" ancestry. In any region of England, you can find people, in differing proportions, of so-called "Celtic", Roman", "Anglo-Saxon", or whatever DNA, but they are still ethnically English and their ancestors have been so for hundreds of years. Common history, language, religion, etc., are more important in determining ethnicity. However, I think your point is valid about ensuring folks in the picture box are really what we are saying they are. George Patton is a good example. Although Patton can be either a Scotch-Irish or Scottish name, I'm not sure his ancestors came through Ulster. The bio I read on him said they were direct from Scotland. Anyone have anything more concrete on Patton's ancestry? Eastcote (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

that is a good point regarding the mother (i read that part again after my message). on his father's side though i'm 100% sure his ancestors never saw scotland. the surname pattan could also be belgian. i've seen it spelled pattyn before. i know nothing about his family though. moore is a common scots-irish name in america. almost all of them came from the ulster plantation in the early 1700's. they bred like rabbits as soon as they got here. what about patrick mcenroe?? gigrant74 (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the hundreds of thousands of Scots-Irish Americans, any selection of just six is almost certain to be wildly unrepresentative. Most of the six shown are appallingly conservative, and generally not the sort of people I would hold up as role models. If you're going to give examples, you should have at least two dozen, and they should be chosen from a range of beliefs and backgrounds. For starters, I nominate the late Popcorn Sutton. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sutton isn't exactly representative of the Scotch-Irish. He's more a consciously extreme hillbilly caricature. "Scotch-Irish" does not equal "hillbilly", as many seem to believe, even though the Scotch-Irish were the principal cultural strain in the Appalachians. Sutton would be a better poster child for the Hillbilly article. Eastcote (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit of 13 April by 24.11.88.78.

I reverted these unexplained edits. Although they seem in good faith, they put forward what appears to be a misreading of original sources. A couple of sources are cited by 24.11.88.78 for the early use of the term "Scotch-Irish" in Britain. However, see the essay What's in a Name? by Michael Montgomery of the University of South Carolina concerning these early cases at the Ulster-Scots Language Society website. Both instances refer to "Gaelic-speaking Highlanders and Islanders from western Scotland" and not to the English-speaking Ulster Scots who later came to be called "Scotch-Irish" in America. Eastcote (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Eastcote, I'm happy I read the talk page first before taking any editing action. (That really should be built into the system requirements for doing any edits, I think!). I refer specifically to the choice of "Scotch-Irish" instead of "Scots-Irish", in the context of usage in the U.S.A. Being a Jewish woman raised in New Mexico, I would not otherwise quibble about this. I do so because my dear, now-deceased spouse was born, raised, lived with me, and is buried in southern Florida, and was Scots-Irish. (No, neither he nor his family were of the Jewish faith!)

I understand why there is a case to be made for Scotch-Irish in this article. It covers the term's history in Great Britain, following as it evolved through time to present-day United States. However, my husband's family always self-described as "Scots-Irish". There was a definite pejorative connotation to "Scotch-Irish", because of the likeness to Scotch liquor. They found it derogatory to have their ancestry explicitly linked with alcohol consumption. Let's make an analogy, I don't know if will help. There's an old, not very nice Yiddish saying, "shika ve a goy", which means "drunk as a white Christian of European ancestry". Using a phrase like "Scotch-Irish" perpetuates that kind of thinking. I know it would have hurt my husband to ever hear that.

There are some other distasteful parts of the article, but not all are inconsistent with my personal experiences. I am now referring to the section that describes the Scots-Irish of 20th and 21st century America as lazy, illiterate, gun-loving, anti-intellectual, fecund (as that prior comment on the talk page said so nastily, "breeding like rabbits"), anti-big government hill billies. It doesn't seem appropriate, but I realize that I am biased by love. I don't want to raise a ruckus over this article. However, if anyone in the future, yourself included, wish to reconsider the matter of naming, "Scots-Irish American" versus "Scotch-Irish American", I am available for assistance.

Final item; I noticed that in one section, the etymology of the term is attributed to HRH Elizabeth I, with a date and source (though no inline reference or other citation URL). Later, that same etymology is described as a "false myth", with flags of "peacock term", "citation needed" etc. The inconsistency needs to be rectified, one way or another, as there shouldn't be conflict within the very same article. I will change it if you want, or you can of course. Please tell me your preference. I'll tread lightly if I make any edits here.

Oops! Sorry, nearly forgot! Would you consider removing a few of the more derogatory wikilinks listed under "See also"? I'm not sure which ones, but we don't need ALL of them. Collectively, they convey a rather grim impression: Redneck, hillbilly, Hatfield-McCoy, whisky, etc. Thank you for considering this! --FeralOink (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Title seems incorrect

Scotch is a drink. Scottish (scot) is an acensetry. Just as the term "oriental" (at least in America) has fallen out of favor and in some circles is offensive and more aptly refers to items such as rug. The term scotch is a liquor not a means of describing a heritage. Strong consideration should be given to revising the title and the information in the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.137.205 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This Wikipedia entry includes a significant explaination of the origin and usage of the term. Shoreranger (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I so appreciate having the term "Scotch-Irish" validated. Its the term we have been using for ourselves for hundreds of years. "Scots-Irish" sounds like a euphemism, and I don't need to use a euphemism, because I am not embarrassed. If I ever make it to the British Isles again, I will remember to be politically correct according to the linguistic standards there. 152.180.6.2 (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Whiskey or whisky

In Scotland, it is spelt whisky, which I suppose is closer to "uisge". According to my friend and banker, Mr. Hamill, of Castlewellan, Co. Down, a convivial conversationalist, his Scottish host offered him "Will you have whisky, or Irish?" DaveyHume (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of ethnic slur links

I'm removing the links to ethnic slurs (again) as they have no place here other than to increase animosity. It may be worth pointing out that other pages regarding American ethnic groups do NOT contain links to ethnic slurs under 'see also' so, unless that is to become standard (I hope not), they do not belong here either.Duedemagistris (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of what to you are "ethnic slurs" is a matter of personal opinion and preference. They have a place here, and not just to "increase animosity". Terms such as "Hillbilly" and "Redneck" are not here to increase animosity. They are real terms, that arguably have roots with or connections to the Scotch-Irish. They shouldn't be hidden because of personal likes or dislikes. The etymologies of the terms are arguably rooted in the usage of the terms by the Scotch-Irish, and are therefore relevant. Doesn't matter if one is personally offended or not. I personally find "hillbilly" to be insulting depending on the context, but that doesn't mean it's not relevant. I am therefore restoring the links. Eastcote (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Your feelings don't matter on this issue; it is NOT the style for this type of article. So, unless you are also adding links to various disparaging terms to other articles on American groups, your point is wrong and irrelevant. I'm removing them again and if you persist on putting slurs back in, I will take this to arbitration.Duedemagistris (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Two points to remember about WP policies and guidelines which apply to this matter: One, WP is not censored, so removing links on the basis that they are "hate speech" or similar is not permitted. Second, links that already appear in an article should not generally be repeated in the See Also section. Hillbilly is used/linked in the article, so I removed it. However, redneck isn't used (yet!), so I left it in. Duedemagistris, if that is still not satisfactory to you, go ahead and take the next step, which would be an RfC or ANI report, rather than continue to revert war. Arbitration is technically a much later step in dispute resolution. - BilCat (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing and reporting. Duedemagistris (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And I've reported you to an admin for violating 3RR. Beware the boomerang. - BilCat (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note that User:Duedemagistris hey as been blocked for 24 houres for violating 3RR, so it will be at l east that long before he's able to respond here. - BilCat (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Duedemagistris has stated : "It may be worth pointing out that other pages regarding American ethnic groups do NOT contain links to ethnic slurs under 'see also'…". However, African American does link to several obvious slurs in the See also section, including the N-word, which is much worse a slur than hillbilly or redneck. I haven't checked any other such articles, but I doubt that I need to. - BilCat (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Ullans"

Recently reference to "Ullans" as a language spoken by the Scotch-Irish was removed on the justification that the ancestors of the Scotch-Irish Americans do not currently speak it in the United States. Whether or not that is true it has not been contended that the Scotch-Irish Americans did not speak it when they arrived, which is more to the point. Therefore the reference has been restored until consensus.Shoreranger (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Ullans", or "Ulster Scots" wasn't really recognized as a distinct "language" until the late 20th century (and it is still debated whether it should be recognized as a distinct language or dialect). It would be inaccurate to says that the Scotch-Irish "possibly" spoke this when they arrived in America. Many were arriving only a generation or two after their ancestors went to Ireland from Scotland (and some didn't come from Scotland at all). There had been no time for "Ullans" to develop into what it is today, 250 years later. At the time, it would have been, if anything, "Scots". I think this should not be inserted unless there is solid documentation that "Ulster Scots" was spoken by these people. Eastcote (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite tag and references tag

You are no doubt wondering why I have put on the references tag, as there are plenty of references. However, they are not references to the use to Scotch-Irish meaning Ulster Scots. It does not mean Ulster Scots, never did. What you have here is the history of the word Scotch-Irish. Think now. How can Elizabeth I have use the term as Ulster Scots when according to you they hadn't even got to Ireland yet? The thesis that Scotch-Irish means Ulster Scots is nowhere proven. The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th edition, has a really good usage note on Scotch-Irish. It doesn't mean Ulster Scots. So, your references don't prove your thesis at all, that the Ulster Scots played a significant role in colonization of the Americas or that Scotch-Irish as used in America means Ulster Scots. Please, stop trying to push your own thesis off as conventional American word-usage. I'm American, not a young one either, and not uneducated (what difference would that make?) and this is the very first I have ever heard of it. The references tag refers to the fact that your usage of this word is incorrect, so your references are the incorrect ones for the thesis. The rewrite tag asks you to correct or prove the theses, that the Ulster Scots are the one meant by Scotch-Irish. I have an alternative of showing that each one of your references do not refer to Ulster Scots, but WP does not like over-tagging. See also my comments of the disambig and on Ulster Scots People. I should go on to the Canadian Scotch-Irish, which I never heard broken out like that from Scotch-Irish, but this is enough for now.

I know you don't like this correction very much. I would say, make the best of it! Give us a history of the word Scotch-Irish, proper use, for which you have already found the references. Luck.Botteville (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Backoff rewrite request

I did some preliminary research and I'm backing off the rewrite request. Notice that the article mentions an American use unknown on the continent. Wouldn't you know it, that is one I use. The original is the Scot-in-northern-Ireland. There is no point in getting into a dither over what might be called by some a provincialism. It can be handled without a rewrite. If I tweaked your triggers, I am sorry.

On the other hand I support the request for authoritative references. If we had brought in the dictionaries to start with, I wouldn't have questioned it. Moreover, some of those refs are not encyclopedic. And, they do not support the article. Strict Scotch-Irish are only a minority of the Scots and Irish who came to America, and yet the references broaden it to all Scots and all Irish. So, there are different meanings. Moreover, the article defines them all as Protestant. So, it seems clear more attention should be paid to definition and nuances of meaning. I think some of references to English word usage might be useful. I'm still going to do some research, but the reason why the article is being misunderstood is its failure to be comprehensive enough in the development of the word and all its current meanings.

Anyway, the pressure being off to correct what seemed to me to be a glaring error, but is only a more minor incompleteness, I probably will spend less time on this one, concentrating on proper references and comprehensive definition. I'm going back to the stubs and the pictures, but you haven;t heard the last of me yet.Botteville (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference 1

You guessed it, I chose to start with this article of the three referenced by the disambig. Naturally, I'm American. Now that I've looked at it I must say what a great article it is. First impressions are not always accurate. Reference 1 is a dead link. It refers to the fact-finder site, so the data can be recovered and updated by a new table lookup. However, those numbers need to be qualified. The 5 mill or so from 2008 had a 30% probability of error. I'm choosing the 2013, 3-year estimate with only a 20% probability of error. There is one for 2014 but it is only 1 year, and the estimates vary a lot from year to year. These are only the households that chose to report a Scotch-Irish ancestry, so it probably reflects only the state of integration of families that have identified themselves as Scotch-Irish. There are those who didn't report it, or were mixed, or who identified with Scotch-Irish but were not that by strict definition. The people of the US generally don't use strict definition (a la Ulster Scots), as this article so propitiously points out. Scotch-Irish to them might just mean Protestant, as opposed to Catholic, or British as opposed to German or some other. The reader should be clued as to the limitations of the data. Right now the box confuses us with contradictory language. Is that or is that not a total number of Scotch-Irish in the US? So, this is going to be my first change. I'm announcing this so you may know what I am doing. Give me some time to effect the changes. I have a new table look-up here but we need to explain it and the ref should be cite web. Ciao. You'll be hearing a LOT more from me gradually, which is the result of trying to question everything I do. Let's fix this article!Botteville (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

References 2, 3

The first few sentences are very condensed, containing two concepts, the first being a definition of Scotch-Irish, the second being the migration of Scotch-Irish to America. References 2 and 3 cover the migration, in some detail, which is good, but there is nothing at all for the definition of Scotch-Irish. In fact you expect it, but the references change the subject onto the migration. The second section gives us a much better view of the term in American English. Historically the term begins with a strict-sense definition: the person must be from Ulster, must have ancestors primarily from Scotland, and must be Presbyterian. This is the dictionary definition still maintained because over there they are not acquainted with the American local uses. Over here it is the usage that varies, the non-strict senses. After 200 years of immigration and co-existence the strict requirements have been relaxed by mechanisms of integration, such as intermarriage. The term might, for instance just mean Protestant or southern Protestant. The usages have been quite different at different times and places, but generally the dictionaries do not cover usages. Also a certain implied mythology has developed, such as that the Protestants of Ireland are or were all in the north, and the Catholics all in the republic, except for a few totally persecuted fellows in the north. Not so. The republic has substantial minorites of Protestants. It had more, but emigration decreased the ratio. So, it seems to me we need to begin with the strict-sense definition, which will take a few refs, and mention the looser uses, which will take more. I have some good refs lined up but I need to check them out and think carefully about what the first few sentences will be. As whether the Scotch-Irish were Ulster Scots, I'm passing on that for now. The claim probably is more true than not for the first wave Irish over here but after the population of the states began to build the usage was often non-strict. So, my next move will be to clarify the definition and introduce the non-strict senses.Botteville (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"Americans"

A good starting point for the intended changes outlined above is the term "Americans." Someone has been doing a lot of ethnic work on the United States, for which thank you. As far as Americans is concerned, the term is not properly applied. It is, let us say, unbalanced. For example, compare the use of the term in a certain recent film about the supposed activities of a mythical US agency in Columbia in which a bomb is dropped from the air and a Columbian official says "the Americans are here." What did he mean by that? In a second use, American archaeologists are always looking for "the first Americans." So, you can see the concept and use of Americans in these articles is not really general and balanced. In fact "American" did not originally refer to North Americans. I thought of how to fix this incorrect specificity without extensive changes on Wikipedia, this article and elsewhere, and it seems to me it can be handled by a disambig. A hatnote can thus be placed on this article for Americans even before defining Scotch-Irish. Incidentally this ethnic approach to America is strictly limited. After something like 400 years of integration just about about no one fits the same category as their ancestors. For example, the "native Americans" (another use of the term) today admit they've been having problems defining who is a member of their tribe and who not. I see "red men" in holiday parades but unless they paraded as such you'd have no way of identifying them as "red men." So, I hope to have this disambig and hatnote for you before long, maybe today, maybe tomorrow. It's a starting point on a big job, to restore balance to these articles.Botteville (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've taken a good look around, and the situation is just as I feared. The Wikipedia view of America and Americans is unbalanced, and this unbalance extends over more articles than I can take on. Some very aggressive editors have been pushing this imbalance. By imbalance, I mean, America and Americans is not solely the United States and its population. The editors have chosen only sources that maintain that it is. These are valid sources no doubt, but I can find ones just as good that take the broader view. What the editors are doing is pushing one point of view. It won't do you any good, editors. English is what it is, and you don't determine usage and standards. It's an easy mistake to make, as we are I think pushy people and like to push our views. So, the creationists are trying to push an anthropology without evolution, as though Wikipedia determined that. What is wrong about that approach is that writing of this sort is the mirror, not the source of the light. It only means Wikipedia is out of touch with it. About a dozen articles that I looked at need to be objectified. The US is only one aspect of America and American, not the whole thing.Well, ciao.Botteville (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been wracking my brains to find an answer to presenting "Americans" in a balanced way without taking on the whole massive American ethnicity block of articles. Disambigs are not the answer as I thought because the slots for all the disambigs are taken, so I'd have to fight for an opening, too broad a front for me right now. I think I got the answer. These x-American articles rely heavily on the US Census. They are author of most of these terms. I need to research how they actually define the terms Scotch-Irish. This authority is consistent with the idea that Americans are US citizens. However, when you arrive at the 18th century the concept becomes inconsistent! For most of the 18th century and the 17th there was no United States, so therefore Americans can't be that. The Census doesn't make the distinction, as far as I know. When you go to apply for medical care and the assistant demands you fill out a form stating your ethnicity for the Census Bureau, they don't consider when you acquired that ethnicity or question your historical accuracy. Maybe only one out of a thousand ancestors was Scotch-Irish, they don't know. So, if we concentrate on the inconsistencies of the article then we need to state the definitions up front. You can't consistently say Americans are only US citizens and talk about Scotch-Irish immigration to America in the 18th century. Parliament itself refers to America and Americans in those days when they were all Great Britain. My next move will be to clarify these definitions up front in this articles, unless I encounter another problem unconsidered. Americans have to be real and not anachronisms. But first, I have to research the Census Bureau, our major source.Botteville (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Concerning your comment that "My next move will be to clarify these definitions up front in this articles, unless I encounter another problem unconsidered." Before you make any changes, please discuss them first on this talk page. Eastcote (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of the term "Scotch" is wrong

Please note that the people of Scotland are offended by the incorrect use of the word Scotch. They are either "Scottish", "Scot" or "Scots". In Scotland the use of the word "Scotch" to describe the people will be quickly be rebuked "Scotch is a form of Whiskey not a people". In respect to Scots everywhere can this be corrected or qualified... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.30.61 (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

In respect to Americans who call themselves Scotch-Irish Americans: No. - BilCat (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Mecklenburg claim unverified

Added a disputed tag to a very bold and likely unjustifiable statement, which flies in the face of the duly skeptical tenor of Mecklenburg Declaration: "Many professional historians have maintained that the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence is an inaccurate rendering of an authentic document known as the Mecklenburg Resolves."

Recommend rephrasing to retain noteworthy Scots-Irish presence in South Carolina (with source) however the dubious history of the Mecklenburg Declaration must not be asserted as fact.

73.238.21.186 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone undid your addition of the disputed tag, so I put it back. The claim is false and, more importantly, not sourced. It is doubted by historians and the onus of proof is on whoever wants to have this in the article to cite a source describing the Scots-Irish involvement. In fact, we should get rid of the statement altogether.

129.170.194.191 (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

First use of term "Scotch-Irish"

The quote from Elizabeth I of England has nothing to do with the Scotch-Irish being discussed here.

Sorley Boy MacDonnell (Somhairle Buidhe Mac Domhnaill) was a Gael from the Hebrides, who married into the native Irish clan O'Neill. Culturally he was the complete antithesis of the "Ulster Scots" ancestors of the Scotch-Irish: Catholic, not Calvinist. A member of the Gaelic culture that was common to both Ireland and the Highland and Islands of Scotland, not the Lowland culture of the Ulster Scots. A speaker of Gaelic (at this time still considered a single language not yet split into modern Irish and Scots Gaelic), not of English or Scots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.69.136 (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)