Talk:Scotch-Irish Americans

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

text: Yeah, ikr? like its Scots-Irish not Scotch-Irish. 152.117.98.89 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

text: No one is advocating calling people currently from Scotland "Scotch". However, the whole term "Scotch-Irish American" is the term for these people in the United States, and what they call themselves, ie. I am Scotch-Irish American. - BilCat (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. That's a Victorian archaism. Scots-Irish is now the more common spelling, since the 1990s (i.e. since the public Internet put Americans in immediate touch with real Scots). This article should move.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @SMcCandlish: Claims that "Scots-Irish American" (not simply Scots-Irish") is more common have been made here before, but couldn't be substantiated. Can you verify that "Scots-Irish American" is now more commonly used by those people to refer to themselves? BilCat (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I missed your list of sources below, as I was writing the previous post when you added it. However, a lot of those sources seem to be about Scottish and Gaelic immigrants in general, not just "Scotch-Irish Americans". To my knowledge, Wikipedia give great deference to what people actually call themselves, not just how academics refer to them. Many Scotch-Irish Americans are very vocal about retaining that term for themselves as a matter of personal pride, regardless of what academics or "real Scots" believe they should be called. We aren't "Scots", but "Scotch-Irish Americans". BilCat (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

text: As an example, we wouldn't consider calling African Americans, which is their (current) preferred term, something different simply because "real Africans" objected to it for some reason, if African Americans stated they still preferred thst term. Why should we do the same thing here? BilCat (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: False analogy, because there's not a large block of people who consider "African" to be an offensive term.  A more apt analogy might be Coloureds of South Africa, a mixed-ethnicity group who prefer that term despite "colo[u]red" being considered offensive in the US. But even this is a poor analogy, for several reasons, including that the US is not the origin area, and WP uses "Coloureds" for that specific ethnic group because it is the preferred term for them in independent reliable sources (if that usage shifted, so would our article title).  And your apparent premise that Americans of Scottish descent still today prefer to call themselves "Scotch-Irish American" or "Scotch Americans" rather than "Scots-Irish Americans" or "Scots Americans" (or "Scottish Americans") is dubious at best, though it's a difficult proposition to test objectively.  The fact that "Scotch" in reference to people is offensive to Scots, and somewhere between silly and offensive to many in the Scottish diaspora, including in North America, should be sufficient. At  it has become a hotly disputed usage, and that is reason enough for an encyclopedia to avoid it in favor of the undisputed spelling.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that many of my compatriots have a misapprehension that the term Scotch is somehow "wrong", or even an insult, simply because it has fallen out of fashion, in regard to certain things only, in Scotland itself. It's not that it's somehow right for Scotch broth and Scotch whisky but wrong for people, it's just that it has been retained for the former, as it has for the Scotch-Irish in the wider world. The same people would probably be as inconsistently irate if you referred to a Scottish pie. Indeed, that the term is regarded as out of favour in one part of the world should have no bearing on its commonplace application elsewhere, and by that I mean, in my experience, Australia and Ireland as well as just the States. 21:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mutt! I'm glad to know there are still dissenters in Scotland.  BilCat (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

text: @SMcCandlish: As far as I can tell, there's never been a formal move discussion for this article. Perhaps it's time. BilCat (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

text:  Just "in Scotland itself" is a false assumption. E.g., I am in nearly every Scottish-American (and many Scottish-[other]) diaspora groups on Facebook, and this debate is frequent on them, among populations of users with almost no native Scots. It comes up enough that several of the admins of such groups have banned the topic from their groups because it is so heated and divisive. "It's not that it's somehow right for Scotch broth and Scotch whisky but wrong for people"; actually, that's precisely what it is. Native Scots who don't like being called "Scotch" would disagree with you if wanted to rebrand Scotch whisky as "Scottish whisky" or "Scots whisky"; it's a major market and a big slice of the Scottish economy. If I'm understanding your point about "Scotch pie" correctly, there might be some people who would object to "Scottish pie", but use of "Scottish" in reference to the inanimate isn't offensive, while to many people use of "Scotch" for the inanimate is, so it's another false analogy. And "simply because it has fallen out of fashion" is plenty of reason to move an article even if there were not a broad and increasing sense that the usage is offensive. The presence of a rare within-Scotland voice who doesn't object to "Scotch" in reference to people doesn't magically dispell all those who do, in or out of the country.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is about the particular term Scotch-Irish American, not the adjective Scotch in general. The baseless offence taken by some to the adjective, in other, and only some, contexts, in a country other than that where the full term under discussion is primarily employed should hold no sway, let alone greater sway.  Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Dismissing the concerns of entire classes of people as "baseless" just proves you're on a polemical mission with regard to this matter. And your proposition that only native-born people of Scotland find "Scotch" used in regard to them to be offensive is not evidenced by any sources. Meanwhile I've provided (below) piles of evidence that usage is shifting away from "Scotch-Irish American[s]" toward "Scots-Irish American[s]" even among American publishers and – this is especially important – by writers and publishers in the areas of thickest concentration of Scots-Irish immigrants (the East Coast and eastern South).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You have provided no evidence of the usage of the term being remotely actively intended to offend. What the ill-informed beholder thinks is another matter. When used, the term is largely in contexts where it is a normal, commonplace term, with no baggage, often as self-identification, neutrally or actively with pride. Is to deny that not dismissive? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Actively intended to offend" has nothing to do whether something is taken as offensive. When something is taken as offensive by a large group of people, WP needs to consider whether the project has anything to gain by using it as our article title. Notice, e.g., that Eskimos, Australian aborigines, and Gypsies are all redirects not article titles, despite the fact that many people mean no offense by them, and some people to whom the terms apply even prefer them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first sentence just repeats, in other words, exactly what I said above. Please stop assuming what the rest of us really mean. Are you seriously suggesting this is a case of a racial slur and actively comparable to the examples above? If people take offence through ignorance, it is surely for a work of reference to disabuse them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

text: It's not an undisputed spelling, or this talk page wouldn't be full of disputes about it. Academic sources aren't the only sources permitted, and there are plenty of other sources that show "Scotch-Irish American" is still in common usage among Scotch-Irish Americans for themselves. As to  "The fact that 'Scotch' in reference to people is offensive to Scots" is totally irrelevant to me, and to many other Americans. What gives them the right to determine what we call ourselves!? Our ancestors left Scotland for many reasons, partly so they could have freedoms they didn't have in Scotland or Ulster, including from this sort of nonsense. BilCat (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's not an undisputed spelling, or this talk page wouldn't be full of disputes about it." That's a good reason to rename the page, since "Scotsh-Irish" doesn't appear to be offensive to anyone, even if it's not the personal preference of some subset of editors/readers. This is not a good subject for false-balance "bothsidesism". That you're just going to dismiss any disagreement with you as "nonsense" would seem to indicate that your useful participation in the discussion has ended, or at least that trying to continue it with you in particular will be a waste of time and energy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (Sorry for the edit conflicts) I have only dismissed the opinions of certain unnamed Scots, who object to the usage of "Scotch-Irish American", as nonsense. I certainly didn't mean to imply your opinions as, apparently, an American of Scottish descent, were nonsense, that wasn't the crux of your argument. I do have to wonder why you are so concerned about what people from another country want you to call yourself, but so dismissive of what a majority of Scotch-Irish Americans want to call ourselves. Please remember, you led this discussion with "put Americans in immediate touch with real Scots", as if that's all that matters in this discussion. I just disagree that it should matter at all to me or any other American. But your best move at this start a formal RM discussion, and we'll see how that goes. BilCat (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For matters like this, where there's a judgment call involved, I find it better to open a general discussion and gather evidence and viewpoints, before going to RM (or sometimes just making RM unnecessary, e.g. if a rename idea is a bad one).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Agree.  We aren't talking aboyt the people of Scotland in this article.  We are talking about the Scotch-Irish, which is an American ethnic group.  Many people who consider themselves Scotch-Irish (from personal experience), might not have much ancestry that even goes back to Ulster.  But because so many people in the area they're from did come from Ulster, it's sort of become a general description for "who they are".  It's a lot more polite than other names they're called.  In my own family from North Carolina I have Carpenter cousins, who consider themselves Scotch-Irish.  But Carpenter was a name they switched to in the 1800s.  The family name was originally Zimmerman, which is hardly a Scottish name.  We aren't talking about Scots in this article.  The Scotch-Irish are a whole different beast. Eastcote (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Their ultimate genetic origins, and the propensity of Americans in the diaspora to identify more strongly with one ancentral line than another, have thing to do with whether to spell it "Scots" or "Scotch".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that whether modern Scots object to the term or not has nothing to do with the spelling used in this article.  They are different peoples, and the one has nothing to do with the other, other than some common history half a millenium ago.  So raising what modern Scots think is not a relevant argument. Eastcote (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That point might sway some opinions (I can think of arguments against it, but not without repeating much of what I've already written above). It's not a valid argument when it comes to reliable source materials at all, though. On any given matter, WP cares what all of the RS say, regardless where they were published and regardless of the claimed ethno-national origins of the author or publisher.  But you're missing another point: it's not just Scots in Scotland who object to "Scotch"; the vast majority of debate about the term is among Scots Americans and Scots-Irish Americans, who numerically dominate pretty much every venue in which these discussion take place, by an order of magnitude. See the evidence below, all American publications, including specific sourcing that "Scotch-" is outmoded. And it's just from an hour of looking around.  Detailed research into this (with more sources and by reading the already mentioned ones in detail) would almost certain produce an overwhelming case to rename this article. But I don't have that kind of time to spend on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I guess I have to chime in here.  I've heard the term mainly as "Scotch-Irish" here in the USA.  It's the traditional way it's spoken.  "Scotch-Irish" is the usual term here for the people this article is about, while the usual American term for people from Scotland is "Scots".  I've only very rarely heard anyone refer to the people of Scotland as "Scotch".  (Although my mother-in-law from Belfast routinely used the term "Scotch" as an adjective for anything related to Scotland).  We are talking about two different sets of people:  Scots and Scotch-Irish.  We call them different things. Eastcote (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If "we call them different things" were broadly true, the search results below simply could not be possible. What the reality is, is that some individuals (mostly older, and perhaps on a regional-dialect basis as well) still like to use "Scotch-Irish" despite it more generally moving rapidly toward obsolescence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suppose that if it's only "older" people, or "regional" people who use the term "Scotch", then we older and regional people need to bow to the people who are moving us more rapidly toward obsolescence.  What you seem to be saying is "The old way is rapidly aging.  Get out of the new way if you can't lend a hand".  All those older and regional people need to get with the mainstream, and follow those scholars who write all those books.  It's a brave new world, and we all need to abandon tradition and conform to the scholarly consensus.  "Scotch-Irish" is what these people have been called for some 300 years.  That doesn't need to be changed based on scholarship of the last 30 years. Eastcote (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with me or you personally or your "values" against someone else's.  This melodramatic hand-wringing of yours is missing something rather obvious and crucial: "conform to the scholarly consensus" is pretty much exactly and all that Wikipedia does, by design.  I've provided quite a pile of evidence that this consensus has shifted or is shifing, and you've provided nothing in response but emotion. That it's in response to concerns from others (not just native-born Scots) that the term is increasingly seen as offensive starkly reminds me of other "I refuse to change my ways and will impede anyone trying to change minds" attitudes in response to other language shifts about other ethnic groups from the 1960s onward. And that's all I'll say on that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

text: "If Scotch isn't even good enough for dogs now, why would we still keep applying it to people?" makes no more sense than "If Scotch is still good enough for whisky, why wouldn't we still keep applying it to people?" I'd find Scotch unusual applied to people in Scotland but I'm well-enough informed about its wider and historical usage to not be under the misapprehension it's an insult. We shouldn't be campaigning to expunge a widely-used term based on the prejudice of the ill-informed, any more than we should accept a Scotch bonnet pepper being called a habanero because there are those unaware of the distinction, Mr Garner apparently included. What is a "Scots goose"? He advocates that one "Limit its use to set phrases such as “Scotch broth” and “Scotch egg.” "Scotch-Irish" is abundantly documented as such a set phrase.https://lawprose.org/garners-usage-tip-of-the-day-scotch-adj-n-scottish-adj-scots-adj-n/ Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The "set phrase" clause is only in relation to examples like broth and egg. You have to actually parse the material sensibly. It is literally  for Garner to have said "Scotch ... is now often considered offensive. ... As a noun, Scotch refers only to whisky distilled in Scotland" and simultaneously to have meant to include people when he waid "set phrases" in early material about inanimate things like broth and eggs. I feel fairly certain that your reading skill are good enough to have figured this out, without any help, so I'm left to wonder why you'd try to make such a bogus argument that anyone can see through. Simiarly, I don't find it very plausible that you can't understand the difference between dogs as geese as animate entities and Scotch whisky as an inanimate substance. I disbelieve that you can't actually understand the distinction being drawn, and believe that you are arguing as if you can't because you hope it will confuse later readers. It's a hand-waving tactic to sow FUD about the source.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. McCandlish, you seem to be the only one here making the argument that "Scotch" needs to be changed,based on your intense belief that it is somehow offensive and out-of-date.  Other people happen to disagree with you.  Please stop insulting people with terms like "bogus argument" and insinuating things about people's "reading skills" or their ability to undestand distinctions.  Please be civil. Eastcote (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a form of red-herring fallacy, and does not substantively address any point I have raised.  This is a poorly-watchlisted page, and entire projects like WikiProject Scotland have gone defunct except for some activity about sports and politics. The fact that I happen to be the only person right this very moment who has brought the matter up is completely immaterial, especially given the evidence on the talk page of this and related articles that it's been discussed multiple times in the past without resolution.  Point out that fallacious arguments are bogus is not "uncivil", it's factual.  If I say that I choose  to believe someone is having reading difficulties but that they're engaging instead in argumentation gamesmanship, I'm also not being uncivil. So, you can climb down off your high horse now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Phewee, you are a delight Mr McC. "Often", thus also: "often not". Scotch as whisky is a noun. In (the set phrase) Scotch-Irish, an adjective. I respect dogs and geese but also respect whisky which, in my view, is due at least as much, inanimate as it may be. "It's a major market and a big slice of the Scottish economy", I hear. My question about the “Scots goose” is genuine: what, the, is it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Scots-Irish" or "the Scotch-Irish" are noun phrases, not adjectives. (Same with "Scotch" by itself when you say something like "The Scotch invaded north England in 1640.") Making them adjectival by turning them into modifiers of "Americans" would not change the spelling we select, any more than you'd change from "traveller" to "traveler incentives" because one was a noun and one an adjective modifying a noun, or go from "She had a caesarian" to "She had a cesarian section".  I have no idea what Scots geese are; possibly a breed of goose, or possibly it was just an example of using "Scots" as an adjective in front of any random noun, like "Scots roadways" or "Scots pastures" or "Scots television shows". Note how dated the usage is if you swap in "Scotch" in any of them. "Scotch whisky" is sticking, beacause it's a protected designation of origin product category, subject to international agreements; it'd be a hassle to change, even if everyday usage supported making a change, which it doesn't. People most often just call it "Scotch", so much so that "Scotch" as an adjective seems to refer to the whisky. If you say "I'm going to a Scotch tasting event" no one thinks you're headed to a cannibal party. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

text: "Scotch"-Irish is the traditional American term for these people.  There's nothing wrong with sticking to tradition, and not changing with recent trend.  I've seen recent arguments that the names of other American ethnic groups should be changed, too, notably the Pennsylvania Dutch and the Cajuns, to make the naming more "accurate".  Much has been said about the Pennsylvania Dutch being actually Pennsylvania "Germans".  The argument goes that use of the word "Dutch" is confusing and historically inaccurate, as the people did not originate in the low countrues.  This is true, but "Pennsylvania German" is not what these people have been historically called and changing from "Dutch" is altering history rather than correcting it.  The same with the Cajun argument.  I've heard some say that Cajuns should be more accurately called Acadians, because "Cajun" is just a corruption of that term, and because "Cajun was used by Anglos to refer to all persons of French descent and low economic standing".  But "Cajun" is the traditional term, and changing it to "Acadian" would be changing history rather than correcting it.  So what if the "trend" in the past 30 years has been towards "Scots" rather than "Scotch".  Stick to tradition and don't bow to the recent whims of scholarly thought.  What do scholars know, anyway?  Scholars seem to want to change a lot of history, lately.  Eastcote (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Repetitively claiming it's " traditional" (emphasis added) spelling when I've presented a large pile of evidence that "Scots-" is increasinly preferred in the very area most concentrated with Scots-Irish Americans (i.e. the source of what you claim "the" tradition is), does not make for much of an argument, and smacks of both proof by assertion and false dichotomy, as well as just hand-waving in the face of a lot of evidence instead of directly addressing any of it.  The rest of what you wrote is more false analogy.  "Scots" or "Scotch" are not wrong-nationality misnomers, nor dialectal abbreviations, and neither "Dutch" nor "Cajun" are terms that cause a lot of offense to large group of people, nor subject to long-term intensive debate that is causing modern writers and publishers to shift away from "Dutch" and "Cajun" (much less in Penn. and LA themselves). It's clear that you just happen to like "Scotch-", but that's not a good reason for WP to continue using it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Also of relevance: WP:DIVIDEDUSE:  Note this does not say "least suprising to a user who feels that the article is about them". It means all our users in the aggregate. Clearly the term considered non-offensive is the least-suprising to use for our article title.  See also WP:ASTONISH. And the evidence above disproves that the Scots-Irish only use "Scotch-Irish" in reference to themselves, since "Scots-Irish" is increasingly the norm in publications in areas of heavy Scots-Irish settlement.  The DIVIDEDUSE guideline also says:  Thus much of this thread, providing usage evidence. We already knew that "Scotch-Irish" had extensive use, and now we also know that "Scots-Irish" has extensive use (i.e., is familiar to readers), and we further know that it is growing while use of "Scotch-Irish" is declining.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the term "Scotch" is wrong

message: Revised this section as some of the information did not reflect the sources cited. According to Kenny (2009) and other sources, the main purpose of the march on Philadelphia in February 1764 was not to demand better military protection or pardons, but to kill the Moravian Indians who had been moved there for their protection in November 1763. Kenny describes only two offensive operations undertaken by the Paxton Boys neither of which was successful. The Paxton Boys suspected the Susquehannock (Conestoga) of providing information and harbouring enemies, not weapons and ammunition. Griffin's Sword (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict with Native Americans 

message: * 
*  – Entire book will probably be of relevance. This was originally an expensive academic issue, but is now available used for around US$15. Significant parts of the content can be Google-previewed here .
*  – "This volume contains a selection of the best papers from the conference, ﬁve invited chapters, and an introduction, for a total of nearly 149,000 words." Also covers Irish, Welsh, etc.
* 
*  – 4-vol. set of very expensive textbooks. Contains 152 essays, and I don't know which volume Newton's is in. Best gotten via inter-library loan, or a university campus library.
*  – Seems to focus on Highland games events in the US South – Publishers Weekly: "A combination of resource compendium, exhaustively detailed anthropological study and astute cultural criticism. Extensive research, clear prose and respect for her subjects will win this authoritative work favor among Scottish American enthusiasts and academics alike."
*  – Has extensive chapters by 7 or 8 authors. Includes Australia in some of Ray's material, but no dedicated chapter about it; the book is mostly about Canada and the US.
**  – This particular chapter sounds valuable: "sketches brief immigration histories of the different Scottish ethnic groups in colonial times and considers how the ethnic divides between Scots, so important in the 18th century, were downplayed through Scottish ethnic organizations in the 19th. The chapter concludes with descriptions of the Scottish-American community and ethnic organization and heritage activities today" (among other material).
**  
** 
** Other pieces include: Ray, Celete; "Scottish Immigration and Ethnic Organization in the United States". Vance, Michael; "A Brief History of Organized Scottishness in Canada". Bennett, Margaret; "From the QuebecHebrideans to les Écossais-Québécois: Tracing the Evolution of a Scottish Cultural Identity in Canada’s Eastern Townships". Vance, Michael; "Powerful Pathos: The Triumph of Scottishness in Nova Scotia". Dembling, Jonathan; "You Play It as You Would Sing It: Cape Breton, Scottishness, and the Means of Cultural Production". Jarvie, Grant; "The North American Émigré, Highland Games, and Social Capital in International Communities". Hook, Andrew; "Troubling Times in the Scottish-American Relationship". Sheets, John W.; "Finding Colonsay's Emigrants and a 'Heritage of Place'". Basu, Paul; "Pilgrims to the Far Country: North American 'Roots-Tourists' in the Scottish Highlands and Islands". Cowan, Edward J.; "Tartan Day in America". McArthur, Colin; "Transatlantic Scots, Their Interlocutors, and the Scottish Discursive Unconscious".
*  – Seems to focus on Highland games events in the US South.
*  – This book is probably the only one on return migration of the diaspora back to Scotland (though I think there's an article at least partly about this in From Tartan to Tartanry as well), and actually covers the 17th century to 21st. Detailed review in Scottish Affairs .
* 
*  – Covers the Plantation of Ulster through American emigration and early US history.
* 
* 
* 
*  - blurbs don't make it clear what the "four" are, exactly. And British != Scottish, but it probably includes Scotland, or it would have said English.
* 
* 
*  – "A massive, scrupulously edited case studies of early emigrants from Ireland (most from Ulster)"
* 
*  – "Assesses the volume, character, and motivations for Ulster [among other, e.g. German, African, etc.] emigration to America."
*  – Not limited to Ulster.
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
*  – This may be a kids' book intended for school libraries; check reviews before ordering.
* 
* 
See also: Talk:Scottish diaspora#Additional sources, Talk:Ulster Scots people#Additional sources, Talk:Scotch-Irish Canadians#Additional sources, Talk:Irish diaspora#Additional sources.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sources 

message: Clearly the numbers do not include Native Americans. 
I suggest a change of label to reflect the chart's reference group. For example:
Total population of European ethnic groups in the U.S. MREditor493 (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The chart headed "Total Population in U.S" -- the article should state who that counts