Talk:Scottish people/Archive 1

message: Does anyone think that it would be a good idea to include a table in the article like in English people, Serbs, Bulgarians, Norwegians and Albanians? GrandfatherJoe 18:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Include table?

message: This whole article needs a thorough review and cleanup. Large parts of it are very amateurish and unprofessional. This article is just not up to Wikipedia standards. Some sources would be nice too.--Mais oui! 08:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noticed that some of the article was in US spelling, which is obviously wrong for a Scottish subject. Leithp (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Scotch is indeed a valid English word to describe Scottish people according to, among others, the (highly respected) journal The Economist in their Style Guide [] (under Scotch). Whether or not Scottish people do or do not refer to themselves as Scotch does not alter this simple fact. 
I don't want to get in the way of your heated debate but I will certainly add that the use of the word "Scotch" throughout this srticle is inaccurate and to a point offensive. Refer to this []. Candy 08:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with your general point, but the sources quoted are quite specific in calling this ancestry Scotch-Irish. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, I must have edited the quote by mistake. Anyways, the other one, on the box of populations, needed to be changed. --Rshu 13:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was I misunderstood? The references say what people describe themselves as. It says they describe themselves as Scotch-Irish, not Scots-Irish, or Scots-Irish-American or anything else. Last time I looked we do not change verifiable facts out of respect for readers. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, not that part, I changed the section in the box "Regions with significant populations of". Most history books call them "Scots-Irish" not the term "Scotch-Irish". I must have changed the other part by mistake(I have now corrected it). Rshu 01:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scotch is a drink

message: "X people" is the standard Wikipedia naming convention for these articles.--Mais oui! 09:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support --Mais oui! 09:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
Template removed, move carried out as requested..dave souza 13:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move to Scottish people

message: :Add any additional comments
Template removed, move carried out as requested..dave souza 13:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: In order to stop the edit war, could we please discuss, and reach a consensus, on two issues:
===How many pictures do we want in the infobox?===
*Personally, four seems fine to me, and pretty much the standard.--Mais oui! 21:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David Hume was recently voted the greatest Scotsman of all time by Scottish academics, but that doesn't matter, since this is a popular page, everything must go to the mass vote. Robert I was by far a greater historical figure than William Wallace, but the latter is more famous. However, I made a mistake wasting time on this article, so put in whoever you want. - Calgacus 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry you feel that way. Your statement "since this is a popular page, everything must go to the mass vote" is not really accurate, see Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Mais oui! 21:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would Adam Smith not be popular? Astrotrain 21:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just get the impression that most Scots are not too enamoured with the concepts of free trade and free market economics at the moment. Wasn't there a college in Fife where the students changed the name from Adam Smith to a socialist person? When all seven political parties in the Scottish Parliament support strongly interventionist economic (and social) policies, it kind of makes you think that we Scots have turned our backs on our great son :)  --Mais oui! 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ta. Yes, that was what I was referring to. But it is not an isolated example of the Scots antipathy for Smith - you should see the pathetic state his grave is in in the Canongate Kirkyard, Royal Mile, Edinburgh.--Mais oui! 10:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. It seems very self-evident indeed that in an article regarding Scottish people, it would be appropriate to apply images of Scottish people.--Mais oui! 10:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was wrong. Sorry. (RJP 14:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war over pictures 

message: *Personally, four seems fine to me, and pretty much the standard.--Mais oui! 21:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How many pictures do we want in the infobox?

message: *I was quite happy with the original William Wallace, Alexander Graham Bell, Sean Connery and Robert Burns, but I also like David Hume and Duns Scotus too: hell, I like (nearly) all Scots! (A personal favourite of mine is Adam Smith: you can hardly think of a Scot who has had such a fundamental effect on the modern world, but I realise that for political correctness reasons he may not be a popular candidate.)--Mais oui! 21:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David Hume was recently voted the greatest Scotsman of all time by Scottish academics, but that doesn't matter, since this is a popular page, everything must go to the mass vote. Robert I was by far a greater historical figure than William Wallace, but the latter is more famous. However, I made a mistake wasting time on this article, so put in whoever you want. - Calgacus 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry you feel that way. Your statement "since this is a popular page, everything must go to the mass vote" is not really accurate, see Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Mais oui! 21:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would Adam Smith not be popular? Astrotrain 21:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just get the impression that most Scots are not too enamoured with the concepts of free trade and free market economics at the moment. Wasn't there a college in Fife where the students changed the name from Adam Smith to a socialist person? When all seven political parties in the Scottish Parliament support strongly interventionist economic (and social) policies, it kind of makes you think that we Scots have turned our backs on our great son :)  --Mais oui! 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ta. Yes, that was what I was referring to. But it is not an isolated example of the Scots antipathy for Smith - you should see the pathetic state his grave is in in the Canongate Kirkyard, Royal Mile, Edinburgh.--Mais oui! 10:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. It seems very self-evident indeed that in an article regarding Scottish people, it would be appropriate to apply images of Scottish people.--Mais oui! 10:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was wrong. Sorry. (RJP 14:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which Scots do we put in there?

message: There follows a contribution left on my Talk page, which belongs here.--Mais oui! 17:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers should not be deleted - they should be verified. That is why I added  tags to some of the more ridiculous ones. Antidote 00:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This anon has violated the Three Revert Rule way too many times. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass deletions of statistics 

message: I find it appauling that you would revert my work.  First of all, the statistics that are being shown are not accurate for the most part.  The only ones that have any merit are the figures for the US indicating 9.2 million US citizens of Scottish and Scotch-Irish ancestry.  Second, I find it somewhat insulting to make grand assumption regarding those of Irish descent may in fact have some of Scotch-Irish in that figure.  If you are using Scotchnet.com as a source to back that up, complete and utter rubbish.  Have you looked at that site, it is nothing more that a anti-Catholic, Irish site full of loyalist and unionist propoganda.  When it comes to statistics the census results speak for themselves.  As I have said many times, there is nothing to indicate that those under the Irish category have any Scotch-Irish in them.  Was a survey completed asking each of the over 30 million American's of Irish ancestry is they were of Scotch-Irish ancestry.  Just because a person is Irish but non-Catholic, does not remotely suggest that they are in fact of Scotch-Irish Presbyterian background.  Let me explain how the census works.  Citizens were allowed to select 2 ancestries.  For example, one person could have an Irish Catholic mother and German Protestant father but declare themselves to be both Irish and German but Protestant.  Does this mean that they are Scotch-Irish? NOOO...they are counted under the Irish category as well as German population but follow the Protestant branch of Christianity...further...these estimates about 5 million Scots in Australia is grossly over estimated...the Australia Census bureau actually states under Ancestry that there are slightly over 500, 000 Australians of Scottish descent and no where does it show or mention 5 million...show proof to back up rediculous assertions of Scots in Poland, Netherland...i look forward to another response from you70.30.71.252 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers should not be deleted - they should be verified. That is why I added  tags to some of the more ridiculous ones. Antidote 00:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This anon has violated the Three Revert Rule way too many times. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish people changes 

message: I fail to see the points being made in Scotchirish.net.  They come up with the idea that 60 percent of those who claimed Irish as their ancestry on the US Census are infact Scotch Irish.  Prior to heavy Catholic Irish immigration to America, Scotch Irish immigration numbered about 250,000 compared to later Irish Catholic immigration of approximately 4.4 million between 1820 - 1920 according to US statistics on the INS page.  I fail to see how a majority of those who state Irish to be of Scotch Irish ancestry.  A major over estimation.  Futhermore, just because someone today is Irish and non-Catholic does not mean that they are Scotch Irish.  Over the generations, people who descended from Irish Catholics changed religion or moved away from any religious attachment whatsoever.  The website is pro Scotch Irish to say the least but I believe it is going a bit overboard.  Statistics speak for themselves.  They are relevant and free of biases.  People picked what ethnic group they descended from or identify with when filling out the census.  People were allowed multiple responses.  To say that many Irish maybe of Scotch descent is a bold statement.  I guess we could then say that many Scotch are truly Irish as they descend from the Scots that crossed over from Ireland during the 5th century etc.  There has also been more recent mass Irish immigration to Scotland.  You want examples?  Billy Connolly, Sean Connery .  For the state of professionalism, I believe we should just stick to the statistics that have been collected in least biased or influenced manner and that would be census reports.  If we fail to neglect these results and make up assumptions or statistics from thin air without actual proof, they we may as well close up shop.
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/immig/irish2.html
It seems to me that you have not read over Scotch-irish.net or other Ulster Scots sites in enough detail. The largest numbers of Scotch-Irish that immigrated to the Americas predated the Irish Catholic immigration by over a century. That is quite a significant difference if you consider how the whole human population was beginning to rapidly increase by the time of the mass Irish Catholic migration in the 19th century with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Anywhere between 250,000-450,000 Scotch-Irish came to the Americas between the end of the 17th century and the mid 18th century alone. If you consider they and their descendants were already long settled in the Americas by the time of the great Irish Catholic migration of the 1840's (again during the Industrial Revolution), their numbers would easily have swelled to around at least 2 million by that point. If you want a simpler way of describing why such a large portion of the 40 million or so Americans who claim Irish ancestry would in fact have Scotch-Irish ancestry: Of those 40 million or so in the 1990 census, almost half or more were in southern states and areas which were historically heavily populated by Scotch-Irish. In turn, it is well documented that very few numbers of Irish Catholics (and any 19th century immigrant group for that matter)settled in these same areas and most Irish Catholics settled in the northern states and major urban centres like New York, Boston and Chicago. Irish Catholics did settle in other areas of the US obviously, but not in significant numbers in the areas traditionally settled by Scotch-Irish. The informatoin on Scotchirish.net is a combination of historical sources as well as census data and is a legitimate source that is on several other  Wikipedia articles and has the backing of the admin. With regards to the US census, as I and numerous sources have stated, large nubmers with Scotch-irish ancestry simply chose "Irish" for a lack of a better term (Ulster-Scots or Ulsterman). Many felt that Scottish didn't accurately describe their ancestry but chose rather Irish because of their origins in Ulster. Scotch-Irish is a confusing term to many who thought it meant those who claim ancestry of Irish Catholics who immigrated to Scotland around the same period as those who were migrating to the Americas (19th cent.) It should also be noted that of the millions of Irish protestants in the US, the largest portion of those would be of the presbyterian denomination which has most of its origins in Scotland. Just to give an example of just how large a proportion of the old-stock American population was Scotch-Irish or of Scotch-Irish descent, look at the number of US presidents which claimed such ancestry. This can be seen on Scotchirish.net and other sites (parents of Andrew Jackson for example were Scotch-Irish from Ulster).
Epf 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish people - Scotch Irish edits 

message: I have to agree with Angus on the results of the US Census for Irish and Scotch Irish.  The results should speak for themselves.  Who are we to question what people put?  We are making to many assumptions here and unless we questions each respondent and look at their ancestral records...we should just let it be for now.  The website scotchirish.net may use historical sources as you mentioned EPf but those really don't matter considering that we have figures based on what people put as their ethnicity on the census.  I think the website is a bit too pro-scotch and as you said anti-catholic irish...when a website or source crosses that line...i begin to question their ideas and agenda....i just feel that they would like to really downplay the role of the catholic irish in america....i agree with you that the scotch irish were fundamentally important in contributing america but that could be easily matched by the later waves of millions from not only Ireland but Germany, England, Italy, Poland and Russia...the fact of the matter....there seems to be a trend in the census results....the germans are the largest ancestral group...they were also the largest immigrant group from 1820 onwards ....the second largest ancestral group are the irish and funny enough they were also the second largest immigrant group from 1820s onwards...due to the fact of heavy irish catholic immigration from the famine onwards....totaling rougly 4.4 million from 1820's onwards....so i don't know...we could analyse these numbers til the cows come home but i just feel that it is inappropriate to be trying to give reasoning behind the census results...especially when we are trying to downplay results that were chosen by the people...there is just no real study completed on the census results from 2000 or 2004....
*Agreed, I won't challenge the census data anymore until I can get more historicl and census sources to challenge the Irish census data. I also agree with you about the views of the site, but I don't think its intent is to disregard the native Irish/Irish Catholic contribution which is obviously also well established and known in the US. The Irish, Italians, Germans, Polish ,etc, retained their culture and ethnic idenetities much better than the Scottish and Scotch-Irish did obviously because of the closeness and shared history of the Ulster-Scots and Scottish with England and Anglo-Saxon culture. One thing I do know for a fact is that the 4-5 million number is not the true number of those who are of whole/partialScotch-Irish ancestry and you will here from me when I have a list of sources/references for this other than just Scotchirish.net. Ciao,Epf 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly not the explanation, presuming that your thought is true (which it probably isn't, as Scottish Americans have strong identities); the Irish share more history with England than the Scots do (although, for political reasons, they may not see it this way). The important difference was probably that the Scots, ethnic-Scots or Anglophones, were almost 100% protestant. Other large protestant populations, peoples such as the (predominantly northern) Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch, similarly were little discriminated against in American history. - Calgacus 18:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey hey, well that's me put right. ;D - Calgacus 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what a discussion 

message: Ulster was originally part of the Dalriada Kingdom of Scotland: The Red Kings. There are a lot of people who say they are Scots-Irish to reflect this geographical fact. A person from Strathclyde could refer to themselves as a Strathclyde Briton because the Romans recorded the Britanni/Pretani/Pict as living there and those are all Latin names referring to the same people. Naming it North Britain again is just confusing as there is a  North Britain geographic area in France and it begs the question of where Southern Britain is which everybody knows is England. Southern Britain is in France too. I'm thinking if you named it North England you would confuse it with Cumbria and get a lot of confused roadside travellors. Greater England would definitely not work because then you have Lesser England and history just has not been following that recently. Plus the religion is totally confusing. You have some islands that are Catholic, some that are Presbyterian, and in Ulster you have the Church of Ireland, which when I last checked was Anglican. Orkney:  It it Norwegian Lutheran? Up-Helly-Ah. The North Sea is stormy. Someone already e-mailed me recently about my website and told me my ignorance of Scotland really shows. I'm sad to say I agree. Whoever these Scotti were archeologically would be a great article and maybe someday I will get better. (Unsigned comment by User:Cokeeffe 08:47 UTC, 6 March 2006)
:I dont think ive ever read such a confusing request for clarification. An Siarach
Please clarify! - River run 20:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification Please 

message: I consider this edit to have been extremely poor. The material removed, namely Scots have been emigrating for centuries, mainly they emigrated to mainland Europe (France, Italy, Holland, Scandinavia and Poland) as merchants and soldiers. is supported by the source cited See David Armitage, "The Scottish Diaspora", particularly pp. 272–278, in Jenny Wormald (ed.), Scotland: A History. Oxford UP, Oxford, 2005.  Verifiable material should not simply deleted because it does not suit a particular editor's worldview. Angus McLellan 22:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV versus Verifiability

message: After all the weeks of debate, someone has now gone and recategorised this section placing people not into what are related ethnic groups, but rather separated into linguistic groupings.
EPF, you are aiding this.  I must admit that I thought better of you than that.
I didn't aid it, I just dont have time to discuss with this person about this rv of the format for "related ethnic groups". Who really cares about such a small section anyway, as long as it says which groups are related. Epf 16:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make two points thiere.  First point - agreed, second point - it's the principle of the thing. Enzedbrit 21:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related Ethnic Groups