This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Connaught Rangers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm surprised that there's no information on the Rangers' mutiny in India in 1920. Anyone know much about it?
Sorry, been really busy, nearly finished the whole article which will include the Mutiny SoLando 19:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Any idea how they got the nickname? -- Henrygb 01:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A rather nice start, and a brief skim seems to indicate that it's well-written and relatively thorough. The sections on the Peninsular and Crimean War are absurdly short, however, and in my personal opinion, it looks bad. If these sections can be expanded, that would be great; if not, perhaps the statement that the Rangers served in these conflicts should be included somewhere else. Perhaps at the beginning of the following section - "After having served in the Peninsular (18xx-xxxx) and Crimean (xxx) Wars, the Rangers returned to Britain..." LordAmeth 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There's also 88th Regiment of Foot (Connaught Rangers). I suggest that is merged here. Alternatively, the specific 88th Foot history here could be merged there, and this left only for the post 1880 history of the combined 88th & 94th. (The early history of the 94th is missing from this; that page redirects here, though). Gwinva ( talk) 09:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
i would just like to let you know that their is an excellant association dedicated to preserving the name connaught rangers,which was formed in 2002 in boyle co.roscommon,ireland.their website is connaughtrangersassoc.com well done on connaughtrangers information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.206.19 ( talk) 12:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The site suggests that two VC were awarded to Private Fitzpatrick and Private Danagher. I believe that this should be Private Francis Fitzpatrick and Private Thomas Flawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.252.229.246 ( talk) 19:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
This article has used the phrase "Irish regiment of the British Army" for as long as it has existed, until MFIreland, who appears to have POV on this, chose to delete it. To make this change, to elide the fact that the Rangers were Irish from inception, just as much as the Scottish Dragoons were raised in Scotland and the Anglians in East Anglia. It is a critical fact of their history and unconscionable to seek to erase it. Such a major change in this, as in any other article, should only be made after securing consensus on the talk page. MFIreland has made no attempt to do this. I am reverting again and I invite him to engage in debate before redoing the deletion. -- Red King ( talk) 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
It cant be both. Its either Irish or British. The phrase Anglo-Irish is often used to imply links between the two but in this case I dont think it would work. The term "raised in" is often used in military unit articles. "raised in Ireland" may be the better option for the intro. -- MFIreland ( talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The assertion that Barror murdered 2 men is cited with ref to an unspecified passage in the "3rd Battalion, Connaught Rangers War Diary". Couple of issues with this.
Firstly, only two Rangers were recorded in the diary as being in Dublin over Easter - Leeson and Barror. Both were on leave in Dublin when the Rising started. (The rest of 3rd Battalion - according to the self same diary - were in Cork at the outbreak). Leeson reported to an officer in the RIR, and was deployed to the Crown Alley telephone exchange. Barror reported to an officer of the 10th Bn RDF, and is recorded as being involved in actions which resulted in the deaths of 2 snipers. There is nothing in the diary about "murdering" 2 people that I can see.
Secondly, while I could (of course) be missing something in the text, unless there was some kind of court-martial (of which there would be more record), it seems very unlikely that the Bn's own diary would blithely record someone as having "murdered" two people.
This claim either needs SPECIFICS from the diary (page number, copy of text, etc) which support the claim, or it needs to be reworded to reflect the facts available. Or it should be removed. Guliolopez ( talk) 21:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
A number of statements cite the 3rd Battalion war diary, without further information. Can we be informed as to where this can be read? Is it online anywhere? -- Red King ( talk) 18:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Before you, anonymous contributor 109.154.157.211, make any further edits on any page you first need to conform to accepted Wikipedia standards of practice and proceedure and officially register with a "User:name" to enable questions arising from your edits be clarified and replied to on your talk page. You have been asked several times to name a recongnised historical source in which the mentioned "war diary" has been published, but you ignore providing this and the need for such verification. If I may make the comparison, your widespread style of editing is very reminicent of that earlier by blocked User:MFIreland. At any rate until verifiable sources are quoted, this section ought to be fought out here, but not on the article page. Osioni ( talk) 18:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Osioni
It is said here of the regiment, "The rolls of which bore the names of every family in Connaught." (The sentence is already pinpointed as needing citation.) That looks a literary distortion (POV?) to those who are aware the regiment also recruited Irishmen from elsewhere in Ireland, besides Englishmen in the First World War - one example being England international footballer Harry Chambers, a native of Northumberland, who enlisted after being signed up by Liverpool. Cloptonson ( talk) 12:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The placing of the traditional nickname'The Devil's Own' adjacent to the regimental title is misleading, especially without further mention or explanation elsewhere in the article. Other regiments did have a collooquial name attached to their official title e.g. The Buffs, The Black Watch, The Cameronians. This was not the case with the Conanaught Rangers.
Although one of the better known regimental nicknames, as with many other regiments its origins appear obscure. In this case it seems to be often attributed to Major General Sir Thomas Picton during the Peninsular war, without a direct attribution I am aware of, while the earliest known written mention may only date from a mention in the 'Dublin University Magazine' in the mid C19th. These are both in reference to the former 88th, subsequently the 1st Battalion of the COnnaught Rangers formed in 1881.
Given that 'Devil's Own'as a nickname is so closely associated with the regiment, it would merit a separate paragraph or section giving reliable references to the origin of this tradition, rather than appearing as it does now at the head of the article. JF42 ( talk) 09:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Connaught Rangers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm surprised that there's no information on the Rangers' mutiny in India in 1920. Anyone know much about it?
Sorry, been really busy, nearly finished the whole article which will include the Mutiny SoLando 19:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Any idea how they got the nickname? -- Henrygb 01:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A rather nice start, and a brief skim seems to indicate that it's well-written and relatively thorough. The sections on the Peninsular and Crimean War are absurdly short, however, and in my personal opinion, it looks bad. If these sections can be expanded, that would be great; if not, perhaps the statement that the Rangers served in these conflicts should be included somewhere else. Perhaps at the beginning of the following section - "After having served in the Peninsular (18xx-xxxx) and Crimean (xxx) Wars, the Rangers returned to Britain..." LordAmeth 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
There's also 88th Regiment of Foot (Connaught Rangers). I suggest that is merged here. Alternatively, the specific 88th Foot history here could be merged there, and this left only for the post 1880 history of the combined 88th & 94th. (The early history of the 94th is missing from this; that page redirects here, though). Gwinva ( talk) 09:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
i would just like to let you know that their is an excellant association dedicated to preserving the name connaught rangers,which was formed in 2002 in boyle co.roscommon,ireland.their website is connaughtrangersassoc.com well done on connaughtrangers information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.206.19 ( talk) 12:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The site suggests that two VC were awarded to Private Fitzpatrick and Private Danagher. I believe that this should be Private Francis Fitzpatrick and Private Thomas Flawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.252.229.246 ( talk) 19:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
This article has used the phrase "Irish regiment of the British Army" for as long as it has existed, until MFIreland, who appears to have POV on this, chose to delete it. To make this change, to elide the fact that the Rangers were Irish from inception, just as much as the Scottish Dragoons were raised in Scotland and the Anglians in East Anglia. It is a critical fact of their history and unconscionable to seek to erase it. Such a major change in this, as in any other article, should only be made after securing consensus on the talk page. MFIreland has made no attempt to do this. I am reverting again and I invite him to engage in debate before redoing the deletion. -- Red King ( talk) 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
It cant be both. Its either Irish or British. The phrase Anglo-Irish is often used to imply links between the two but in this case I dont think it would work. The term "raised in" is often used in military unit articles. "raised in Ireland" may be the better option for the intro. -- MFIreland ( talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The assertion that Barror murdered 2 men is cited with ref to an unspecified passage in the "3rd Battalion, Connaught Rangers War Diary". Couple of issues with this.
Firstly, only two Rangers were recorded in the diary as being in Dublin over Easter - Leeson and Barror. Both were on leave in Dublin when the Rising started. (The rest of 3rd Battalion - according to the self same diary - were in Cork at the outbreak). Leeson reported to an officer in the RIR, and was deployed to the Crown Alley telephone exchange. Barror reported to an officer of the 10th Bn RDF, and is recorded as being involved in actions which resulted in the deaths of 2 snipers. There is nothing in the diary about "murdering" 2 people that I can see.
Secondly, while I could (of course) be missing something in the text, unless there was some kind of court-martial (of which there would be more record), it seems very unlikely that the Bn's own diary would blithely record someone as having "murdered" two people.
This claim either needs SPECIFICS from the diary (page number, copy of text, etc) which support the claim, or it needs to be reworded to reflect the facts available. Or it should be removed. Guliolopez ( talk) 21:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
A number of statements cite the 3rd Battalion war diary, without further information. Can we be informed as to where this can be read? Is it online anywhere? -- Red King ( talk) 18:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Before you, anonymous contributor 109.154.157.211, make any further edits on any page you first need to conform to accepted Wikipedia standards of practice and proceedure and officially register with a "User:name" to enable questions arising from your edits be clarified and replied to on your talk page. You have been asked several times to name a recongnised historical source in which the mentioned "war diary" has been published, but you ignore providing this and the need for such verification. If I may make the comparison, your widespread style of editing is very reminicent of that earlier by blocked User:MFIreland. At any rate until verifiable sources are quoted, this section ought to be fought out here, but not on the article page. Osioni ( talk) 18:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Osioni
It is said here of the regiment, "The rolls of which bore the names of every family in Connaught." (The sentence is already pinpointed as needing citation.) That looks a literary distortion (POV?) to those who are aware the regiment also recruited Irishmen from elsewhere in Ireland, besides Englishmen in the First World War - one example being England international footballer Harry Chambers, a native of Northumberland, who enlisted after being signed up by Liverpool. Cloptonson ( talk) 12:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The placing of the traditional nickname'The Devil's Own' adjacent to the regimental title is misleading, especially without further mention or explanation elsewhere in the article. Other regiments did have a collooquial name attached to their official title e.g. The Buffs, The Black Watch, The Cameronians. This was not the case with the Conanaught Rangers.
Although one of the better known regimental nicknames, as with many other regiments its origins appear obscure. In this case it seems to be often attributed to Major General Sir Thomas Picton during the Peninsular war, without a direct attribution I am aware of, while the earliest known written mention may only date from a mention in the 'Dublin University Magazine' in the mid C19th. These are both in reference to the former 88th, subsequently the 1st Battalion of the COnnaught Rangers formed in 1881.
Given that 'Devil's Own'as a nickname is so closely associated with the regiment, it would merit a separate paragraph or section giving reliable references to the origin of this tradition, rather than appearing as it does now at the head of the article. JF42 ( talk) 09:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)