This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the
importance scale.
Followers?
@
Geni:in this edit you added a references to "Followers" pipelinked to
Followers (British Indian Army). Since it's currently a redlink could you add an explanation of what this word is referring to - it's not obvious (to me at least) and I don't have access to the source you cited fpr it. Thanks.
DeCausa (
talk) 11:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree a red link is no good. 'Followers' in the British Indian Army referred to people like civilian cooks and cleaners who moved with the actual troops.
Sbishop (
talk) 12:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
There’s a risk of straying into
WP:SYNTH if we start defining what Followers are outside of that source. If it literally only describes them as “camp followers” of the Indian Army, then it would be better to use that phraseology (lower case f)and link it to
camp follower.
DeCausa (
talk) 13:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
We can put authorised in front if it and still link to the same article. I think there is a definite risk of SYNTH of using another source to define it if that other source doesn’t discuss who got the boxes. Clearly, the redlink alone doesn’t work.
DeCausa (
talk) 15:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
We can't just link to the camp follower article because they clearly aren't the group of people the
Camp follower article talks about. First sentence "Camp followers are civilians who follow armies." their status as civilians is questionable at best. "There are two common types of camp followers; first, the wives and children of soldiers, who follow their spouse or parent's army from place to place; " definitely not. Followers appear to have been adult men. "the second type of camp followers have historically been informal army service providers" again no because followers in the Indian army (particularly those brought to Europe) were formal service providers. The same sentence appears
here Ctrl-F Bhistis. So our options are:
No link at all and use the terms of art either Authorised camp followers or Bhistis without further explantion.
An aside into the ranks of the British Indian army during WW1 (which could take some time)
A redlink that indicates the term is more complicated than it first appears and we hope someone who knows the situation better writes the article down the line
I'm against the last option as I think it just leaves the reader (currently) with a big question mark. What about using the phrase "authorised camp follower" (with no link) and then have a footnote against it saying: "Non-combatant personnel, referred to as "followers", served on the Western Front with the British
Army of India and performed administrative or other service functions." - cited to
this (p.36, The Indian Army on the Western Front, 2014, by Georg Morton-Jack).
DeCausa (
talk) 17:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I can access the source (and I probably added it when I created the article). It says “And on Christmas Day they were delivered: silver for officers and brass for everyone else”. But now that I look at it again I’m worried it was published by self-pub/vanity press. I’m on my phone at the moment so it’s a little to hard to check - but will do so properly a little later.
DeCausa (
talk) 15:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
"Most Indian troops received the box itself, cigarettes, a tin box of spices, a packet of sugar candy...". Is "sugar candy" in the source? Is Condell American? It sounds like an Americanism but it may be a British WW1 term (like "acid tablets"). I don't have access to the source to check.
DeCausa (
talk) 08:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the
importance scale.
Followers?
@
Geni:in this edit you added a references to "Followers" pipelinked to
Followers (British Indian Army). Since it's currently a redlink could you add an explanation of what this word is referring to - it's not obvious (to me at least) and I don't have access to the source you cited fpr it. Thanks.
DeCausa (
talk) 11:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree a red link is no good. 'Followers' in the British Indian Army referred to people like civilian cooks and cleaners who moved with the actual troops.
Sbishop (
talk) 12:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
There’s a risk of straying into
WP:SYNTH if we start defining what Followers are outside of that source. If it literally only describes them as “camp followers” of the Indian Army, then it would be better to use that phraseology (lower case f)and link it to
camp follower.
DeCausa (
talk) 13:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
We can put authorised in front if it and still link to the same article. I think there is a definite risk of SYNTH of using another source to define it if that other source doesn’t discuss who got the boxes. Clearly, the redlink alone doesn’t work.
DeCausa (
talk) 15:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
We can't just link to the camp follower article because they clearly aren't the group of people the
Camp follower article talks about. First sentence "Camp followers are civilians who follow armies." their status as civilians is questionable at best. "There are two common types of camp followers; first, the wives and children of soldiers, who follow their spouse or parent's army from place to place; " definitely not. Followers appear to have been adult men. "the second type of camp followers have historically been informal army service providers" again no because followers in the Indian army (particularly those brought to Europe) were formal service providers. The same sentence appears
here Ctrl-F Bhistis. So our options are:
No link at all and use the terms of art either Authorised camp followers or Bhistis without further explantion.
An aside into the ranks of the British Indian army during WW1 (which could take some time)
A redlink that indicates the term is more complicated than it first appears and we hope someone who knows the situation better writes the article down the line
I'm against the last option as I think it just leaves the reader (currently) with a big question mark. What about using the phrase "authorised camp follower" (with no link) and then have a footnote against it saying: "Non-combatant personnel, referred to as "followers", served on the Western Front with the British
Army of India and performed administrative or other service functions." - cited to
this (p.36, The Indian Army on the Western Front, 2014, by Georg Morton-Jack).
DeCausa (
talk) 17:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I can access the source (and I probably added it when I created the article). It says “And on Christmas Day they were delivered: silver for officers and brass for everyone else”. But now that I look at it again I’m worried it was published by self-pub/vanity press. I’m on my phone at the moment so it’s a little to hard to check - but will do so properly a little later.
DeCausa (
talk) 15:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
"Most Indian troops received the box itself, cigarettes, a tin box of spices, a packet of sugar candy...". Is "sugar candy" in the source? Is Condell American? It sounds like an Americanism but it may be a British WW1 term (like "acid tablets"). I don't have access to the source to check.
DeCausa (
talk) 08:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply