Talk:Black and Tans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Special Reserve?[edit]

There seems to be a bit of an edit war raging over the official name of the Black and Tans, or whether they had one at all. Books such as D M Leeson's The Black and Tans (2011) make clear that the Black and Tans weren't a separate force like the Auxiliaries, and that they weren't the Reserve Force (which was founded in 1839). But did they have an official name nevertheless?

Most sources do not say that there was an official name for the Black and Tans. Several very recent sources, mostly news websites, say in passing that the Black and Tans were officially named the "Royal Irish Constabulary Special Reserve" (which isn't the same as Reserve Force). However, those sources should be taken with a pinch of salt, as they might have gotten the information from Wikipedia itself, as such sources often do. The name has been in the article since 2015. It's based on two sources:

I can't find any other sources from before 2015 that use this name, which makes me wonder whether a mistake has been made and copied by several others.

In light of all this, I think we should remove "Special Reserve" as their official name unless better sources are found. We could write somewhere in the article: "some sources say that their official name was the Royal Irish Constabulary Special Reserve". ~Asarlaí 22:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one, this one, or this one, for example. The Banner talk 23:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have numerous asides from sources which may well have got the title from wikipedia, but we also have the most recent scholarly account of the Black and Tans by David Gleeson which explicitly refutes the suggestion that Black and Tans were the RIC reserve or special reserve, or that they formed a separate corps from the RIC. I would respectfully suggest that all sources here are not equal and that the full scholarly treatment must get priority. In fact, if you look above D.M Gleeson actually commented here many years ago that this was not correct. Just because the mistake has been repeated many times does not make it right. Jdorney (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gleeson?
Let us start at the beginning:
  1. Is the work of mr. Leeson peer reviewed?
  2. Is he a notable historian in his own right?
The Banner talk 13:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Banner, unfortunately only your first source (the book review) is from before 2015, which means it's possible the others have gotten the name "Special Reserve" from Wikipedia or the two sources in this article. The website wouldn't pass as a reliable source anyway. I agree with Jdorney that scholarly sources must be given priority. What we really need are primary sources (from the 1920s), or scholarly works which cite them.
The problem is that the vast majority of sources do not say the Black & Tans had an official name. We only have a few sources (out of thousands) that say they do, in passing. They're all from the last few years and don't tell us where they got the information. A few even say their official name was "Reserve Force". But we know that's wrong, so it's possible the others are wrong about "Special Reserve" too.
Therefor, I think we should re-write it to say: "some sources say that their official name was the Royal Irish Constabulary Special Reserve". ~Asarlaí 17:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, re 'Gleeson' slip of the typing! (Corrected now). Mr Leeson is absolutely is peer reviewed. He is a professor of history at Laurentian University, Ontario Canada, specialising in modern Irish History. [1] His work on the RIC is widely cited in the academic world [2]. Reviews of his book on the BLack and Tans are here [3] [4] [5] [6]. So I don't think that there's much doubt about his credentials.
As well as David Leeson's work however, there are more scholarly references that back up this point. The 'Black and Tans' were recruited as regular RIC constables. Richard Abott, in Police Casualties in Ireland (which is the go-to work on RIC casualties in the War of Independence has this to say. (2019, p.81),
who or what were the Black and Tans? The simple answer to this question is that they were recruits to the regular RIC who had to wear a hybrid dress of police and military uniform.This situation arose because so many men joined the RIC that it was impossible to secure sufficient quantities of dark green police uniforms... Another result, perhaps more serious than the look was the impression that there men were members of the RIC in the sense of being regular constables as heretofore. The uniform appeared to indicate that thy were a quasi military force under the control of the military authorities. This impression died hard long after any deficiencies of uniform had been made good by the end of 1920 with all the men being equipped in standard police uniform.
Furthermore, turning to the general scholarly history of the war, with Charles Townshend's The Republic, The Fight for Irish Independence,(2013), we find the same point: the so called Black and Tans were actually recruits into a restructured RIC, not a new division of it. P.102.
[Sir John] French in cahoots with Walter Long, was allowed to reconstruct the police, in a way that would have huge repercussions on the legitimacy of British authority in Ireland. At the end of ht year [1919] a n order was issued in the name of the Inspector General of the RIC, authorising recruitment of non-Irish personnel into the constabulary...A few days into the new year, the first British recruits began to arrive: The Black and Tans were born'. And p.157, 'The first British recruits to the RIC went out to stations, after a few weeks training, in March [1920]... They were enlisted a regular constabulary but the addition of khaki undoubtedly hinted at a quasi military role. Even after the regular RIC's uniform shortage was cleared up, at the end of 1920, the sobriquet 'Black and Tans' stuck to the British recruits.
So the point I'm making is the specialist scholarly work tells us that the 'Black and Tans' was just a nickname for the new recruits made into the RIC from Britain from 1919-21. They were not temporary constables nor did they form a sub-unit the Special Reserve. I'm not sure how this trope came up but it is incorrect. If we are talking about the Auxiliaries however that is another story. They were recruited as 'temporary cadets', with their own uniform, rate of pay, units and command. I hope we can make progress on the article on this basis. Jdorney (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the Black and Tans were absorbed into the RIC, why are they treated like a separate unit with even a specific uniform? Even here: They were supplemented by the Black and Tans and 'Auxiliaries', who became known for their brutality, in 1920. See also this: [https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ric-commemoration-not-appropriate-victims-descendant-1.4132040?fbclid=IwAR0F0-uoqjfE21fmT4TyMSxjekJGEfN5Cd9Q94AAIA84a-dhMTcCOQZQ53c "The fragment comes from a kitchen table taken from the ruins of his father’s home and business in the Clare town after it was burned by a combined force of Royal Irish Constabulary and Black and Tans on September 22nd, 1920."The Banner talk 18:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm not being repetitive, but can you please read the sources I've provided above again? As Leeson, Abbot and Townshend make clear (above), they were not treated as a separate unit. they were drafted into RIC units. They were only initially given a different uniform because there were not enough police uniforms to go around. This was rectified by late 1920. A news source like RTE and Irish Times (above) is not equal to the specialist literature on the subject as a source. To be clear while there certainly existed a perception, in part due to their initially different uniforms, that the Black Tans were different formation to the RIC, this was not the case (see Townshend above). Again, the Auxiliaries were different, they had a distinct units, distinct uniform and distinct command. But the 'Black and Tans' were just recruits into the RIC. I think this is very clearly asserted in the sources I've given here. Jdorney (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not repetitive. You are just ignoring what I have to say. So, thank you and goodbye. I am not spending any more time on this charade. The Banner talk 19:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's not good enough. This is not a charade. I have provided pretty extensive sources to back up the point I am making. I have listened to what you are saying, but you are incorrect. I will accordingly be changing the article to reflect the sources and I trust you will stop reverting please? Jdorney (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is nothing but agreement by the like minded - said by Alex Danco and many others.

I don't know who Alex Danco is, or why his opinion matters on the topic of peer review. But he sounds like he has his head up his ass--like many others.Cliodule (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

some sources count a "small number" of Irishmen as black & tans[edit]

How about 1 in 5 were Irish born? That's not really a "small number", nor is this a neutral way to word this info. The demographics of the Black & Tans reflected the demographics of the UK at the time, including Ireland's proportion of the population, and the Catholic/Protestant proportion in Ireland. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"British rule"[edit]

I keep seeing this phrase in virtually every article for this period of Irish history. What, pray tell, does "British rule" mean or supposed to mean? Is anyone seriously denying that Ireland was an equal member of the United Kingdom from 1801 -1922? And if not, isn't there a better or more neutral way to talk about a move to secede from the British state without making it sound as if they were literally ruled over by a foreign government against their will? By the late 19th Century, Ireland was sending more MPs to Westminster per capita than England & Wales. The first woman voted to the British Parliament was an Irishwoman.

You know, there is close to a 'zero' chance that historical articles on Ireland, particularly from the Early Modern Period on, are being edited neutrally. It is quite obvious that many of these articles have turned into little fiefdoms jealously guarded by a handful of editors, and that no one else is really paying attention to this space. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under British governance possibly might sound better Zwphyr (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Under British rule" is both neutral and accurate. Cliodule (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True. Ireland was in the same position as Scotland and England and the principality of of Wales - all ruled by the British Parliament in which they are represented. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that why a million Irish people died of starvation and disease in the 1840s? Because Ireland was in the same position as England under the Union?
Like Jonathan f1 before you, you're making a distinction without a difference. By itself, the fact that Ireland was represented at Westminster doesn't prove anything. The people of Ukraine were represented in the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union: the Ukrainian SSR even had seat in the general assembly of the United Nations. Yet nobody would say that Ukraine wasn't under Russian Communist rule, or in the same position as the RSFSR. Similarly, many of France's former colonies, including Algeria, were represented in the Chamber of Deputies. That doesn't mean they weren't colonies, or weren't under French rule. And nobody would pretend that Algeria was in the same position as France itself, under the Third Republic.
Ireland was not a British colony, exactly--but it wasn't a province either. Under the UK's unitary system, Ireland and the Irish enjoyed markedly less self-government than other (white) non-British peoples within the Commonwealth. In Canada, for example, the Quebecois elected their own provincial government, with areas of exclusive jurisdiction, as well as being represented in the federal parliament. In South Africa, the Black population was completely disenfranchised: but the Boers of the Transvaal, like the Quebecois, elected their own provincial council, as well as being represented on the federal council of the Union of South Africa.
The Irish spent the late 19th and early 20th centuries voting for something like the level of self-government that the Quebecois enjoyed in Canada: but their representatives were always refused. That was, indeed, the whole point of the Act of Union, 1800: to contain Ireland's elected representatives safely within a British majority at Westminster, and thereby prevent Ireland from governing itself. When the walls of the Commons were breached in 1893, British Conservatives and Unionists fell back on their citadel in the House of Lords. And when their citadel was forced to surrender in 1911, they fomented armed insurrection in Ulster, rather than bow to the will of the people.
If you want to see what happens when two countries are TRULY in the same position under their constitution, you only have to look at what happened between Sweden and Norway around the same time. Norway did not have to fight and win a war of independence: all they had to do was win a referendum, after the Swedish government rejected the Norwegian parliament's UDI. The people of Norway voted overwhelmingly for independence, and after negotiatons, the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway was dissolved. Strangely, nobody got shot, and nobody was burned out of their homes.
So, let's have no more quibbling about "under British rule." That phrase, as I said, is both neutral and accurate. Anything else is POV. Cliodule (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recognise the points you raised - however....
The famine is not the determinant of the status of what is now Eire prior to independance in the same way that, while not on the same scale, poverty and starvation were common in the rest of Britain, endemic in certain area and for political reasons grossly under reported, do not determine the status of London's East end.
Your examples of lack democratic representation would equally apply to the people of areas of England during the governments of the Thatcher era. A conflict within living memory). The intensity of that example during periods like the miners strike would certainly provoke feelings similar of 'imposition' by the British government.
I understand that it is important to 'the narrative' to 'other' the people from over the sea. But there were (very) many 'Irish' people involved and supporting the system that prevailed at that time and even more who wanted to remain part of the British Empire even after home rule. Have a look at our own article on the background of the 1918 Irish general election. Michael Collins didn't die fighting the 'British'.
The British government deployed the army during the Police strikes of 1919 and the general strike of 1926. If you read the history of these conflicts the paralles with events in Ireland are unmistakable.
"HMS Valiant had steamed down for the Home Fleet’s base at Sacpa Flow and was anchored in the river. The Army, camped in St. Johns Gardens, they would be used to enforce the security of the Dock Estate.
On the Saturday morning an uneasy peace extended over the city. The events of Friday night would be repeated on Saturday night and Sunday night. In Everton a Magistrate read the Riot Act proclamation, from the safety of an armoured car. It ordered, in the name of the King, the citizens to disperse within one hour and gave the authorities the right to clear the street by why what ever means after the hour’s grace. An hour later the Army fired a volley over the heads of rioters.
That Eire was part of Britain is still visible today.
See the memorials to the 200,000 Irishmen who volunteered for service in the British army during the first world war - 35,000 of whom gave their lives.
The people of Eire continue to this day to have the same travel rights as citizens of the rest of Britain. The free travel area is a historic result of that union.
Resident Irish citizens can still vote in UK general elections.
The position of Ireland under the British government is more complicated than your portrayal and the comparisons with various other parts of the British isles and the Civil war in Ireland make your arguments less compelling than you seem to believe. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in response to Biden comment[edit]

@Mz7 This article is getting vandalized due to increased public attention. I don't know standard procedure, but perhaps it should be sanitized and locked for a bit. SnowdogU77 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I believe a lock for 24 hour is needed Zwphyr (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowdogU77:  Done. I put the article under semi-protection for a couple days. In the future, you may request page protection at the following page: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (shortcut: WP:RFPP). Best, Mz7 (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it I am somewhat new to the whole Wikipedia thing, so I will do that in the future Zwphyr (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

We currently say:

"The vast majority were unemployed former British soldiers from Britain who had fought in the First World War. Some sources count a small number of Irishmen as 'Black and Tans'."

British soldiers from Britain is rather redundant (we wouldn't say French soldiers from France) so shall we simply say British soldiers?

Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know you can edit this article, right? It's kind of Wikipedia's thing. Cliodule (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really?? Well thanks for the tip :)
Everything about this article seems to be contentious to someone. Hence me raising it here first.
I'll make the edit and let's see how it goes. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irish B&T's[edit]

The studies on origins of the Black and Tans by Irish historians point towards a high level of Irish participation in the unit, between 8-20%. There would seem to be no reason to exclude this information from the text. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue: If you can source it, per WP:ONUS, then add it, by all means. And I am not completely unmindful of the fact that much of the article is, in fact, already unsourced. ——Serial 16:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the sources are on there, have been for months, it's just someone keeps reverting it. Hence the "discuss".Boynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did revert it indeed, and I am inclined to partially revert again. If you look at this source it states that it is a sample. Extrapolating that into hard figures for the whole force is at least tricky. Mr. Herlihy presents "extensive research" in this newspaper article but that research is - as far as I can see - not peer reviewed. Beside that, the edits break a link to a source. The other two sources do not add anything to this discussion/the numbers. (The four sources from the lead) The Banner talk 18:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fifth source (Lowe) is hidden behind a pay wall. Assuming that Boynamedsue has access to that source, I hope he can provide relevant quotes to back up his changes. The Banner talk 19:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first Source you link to is written by William J. Lowe, professor of history specialising in the RIC, who is a visiting fellow at Trinity. The sample he used was fully a quarter of the enrolments of the Black and Tans. In the text as it stands, I have included that sample size to assuage your concern, but the fact that he judges that he can extrapolate a figure from that sample means it is WP:DUE to include that extrapolation in the article. The fact you don't think he should really doesn't come into it, you're not a RS, and he is.
The book by Herlihy is published by a reputable publishing house. It doesn't really matter if it is peer-reviewed, peer-reviewed is good, but not being peer-reviewed does not disqualify a source.
Lowe's "The War Against the RIC." states "The new recruits were overwhelmingly British, but at least 953 were Irish-born, including 231 who joined in the first week alone." However, this predates (2002) his more comprehensive research on the topic published in 2004.
In any case, the text can't stand as it was, we had language that indicated there were a couple or three Irish Black and Tans, when our sources say they numbered in the high hundreds, or even low thousands.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, thanks for the heads up about the link, fixed. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So your change is purely based on your opinion and interpretation. Therefore, I maintain my objection. By the way, the source also states that the public records are incomplete. The Banner talk 09:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, my addition is exactly what the reliable source says. Where is the opinion and interpretation? If anything, my addition removed opinion.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I contest the reliability of that source: extrapolations based on incomplete record. In my opinion, that is guesswork. The Banner talk 12:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have any grounds to contest the inclusion of the claim, it comes from an impeccable source (a professor of History who specialises in the RIC) and is attributed and not contested by any scholar. The text clearly states that it is an extrapolation from a data set of 25% of the force. You cannot disregard a valid reliable source on the basis that you just don't like it. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that "I do not like it" as you claim, I question the extrapolation based on a sample of incomplete records. The Banner talk 13:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So could you formulate your objection with regards to a wikipedia policy? Lowe is clearly an academic subject area expert, therefore his research and conclusions are WP:DUE for this article. Trinity website describes Lowe thus: "Dr. Lowe’s research and writing is in the field of modern Irish history and he was a Fulbright Scholar in Ireland (1990). His current project is the history of the Royal Irish Constabulary (R.I.C.), from 1836 until its disbandment in 1922. "
Therefore anything he publishes on Irish history, especially the modern period, and especially British-era policing is a reliable source per WP:RS. We can consider his study to be reliable (we know at least 500 Black & Tans were Irish), and as a subject area expert, his opinion (the extrapolations) are also WP:DUE. His earlier statement that 900-odd Black & Tans were Irish would also be reliable per WP:RS.
Now, do you have any evidence that Lowe might not be an academic subject area expert? Otherwise it would seem difficult to argue that his data should be excluded from the text. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made it clear why I object. That you do not agree, is evident. And you carefully avoid to address the content of my objection, instead focusing on the reputation of the author and/or the publisher. So let us wait on other opinions. The Banner talk 14:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your objection does not have content, at least not in terms of wikipedia's policies.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And again you avoid the real issue. The Banner talk 14:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the real issue?Boynamedsue (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your blatant refusal to address the reliability of the numbers that are based on extrapolations of a sample of incomplete records. You really give me the idea that it is your own work that I am questioning. The Banner talk 19:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing me of being a history professor on the sly? That is the weirdest WP:PERSONALATTACK I have seen on here. I am astounded that someone who appears to be an experienced editor is incapable of understanding that their personal disagreement with the methodology of a reliable source has no bearing on whether it should go in an article. If a subject expert publishes something, it really doesn't matter what you think about it, it is WP:DUE unless you can prove that other scholars consider it to be so wrong that it does not deserve mention. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and WP:BLUDGEONING... The Banner talk 20:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are also things that you are doing. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And again you avoid the issue and put the blame on me. Sorry, not going to work. The Banner talk 20:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Black and Tans" weren't a unit, or a separate force of any kind. It's a nickname Irish people gave to the non-Irish recruits into the RIC. The War of Independence was the first time non-Irishmen were recruited as regular constables. This is explained in the article. Most sources I've read reserve the name "Black and Tans" for these non-Irish reinforcements, such as Leeson's The Black and Tans: British Police and Auxiliaries in the Irish War of Independence. What are Herlihy's and Lowe's definition of a "Black and Tan"?
I also share The Banner's doubts about how reliable these sources are, and agree that we should be careful not to overstate samples and estimates. – Asarlaí (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The definition they use is of the Black and Tans as the police taken on in the 1920 as part of the British government's expansion of police numbers, who were initially outfitted in the pseudo-military Black and Tan gear. That would include the thousands of Irish recruits. Our text as it stands clearly includes them, as if it didn't there would be no reference to a "small number of Irish recruits", that would be a contradiction in terms. I have made an edit to neutralise the language as "small number" is not what the authors cited say. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a surprise that you reverted the edits of Aserlai for your own text. But being creative, I requested a few books from the library. Assuming that such important scholars/authors would have their books in Irish libraries... The Banner talk 22:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revert has a technical definition on wikipedia. Asarlaí's edit was a revert, and there is nothing wrong with that. My edit was not, it was an attempt to reach compromise by making the text reflect the viewpoint of their above post, while removing the word "small" which actually specifically contradicts Lowe and is WP:OR. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively it was a revert, as you restored your preferred text and opinion. The Banner talk 10:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd have a hard job arguing it was a revert, it was a new edit, changing the point of view in the text as an attempt to reach consensus. Given the default consensus is to leave the numbers off during discussion, I have no problem with the second revert. I have now tried a version without "small" which is not supported by any source.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I can also call it disruptive editing and POV-pushing. Taking a legalese approach towards definitions will not help. IMHO, it only shows how shaky your foundations are in this dispute. The Banner talk 14:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Asarlaí: thanks for the heads up re Leeson, I found a version of his article about wikipedia on "the Irish Story" not sure if it's reliable or not as a website, but if it is something Leeson has actually written (there or elsewhere) it's reliable. From that article, it does look like he is leaning towards the idea that Black and Tans are by definition not Irish, but in his dissertation and book he refers to "two Irish Black and Tans interviewed by Brewer...", so it would seem his position has changed or is somewhat inconsistent. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion is overlooking an important point: namely, that Irish men continued to join the Royal Irish Constabulary by the usual channels throughout the War of Independence; they were appointed on a recommendation from a district inspector, and trained at Phoenix Park, like generations of Irish constables before them. Since these men can hardly be considered 'Black and Tans,' we need to exclude them before discussing how many Black and Tans (if any) were Irish.

Unfortunately, Lowe does not do that. His article 'Who were the Black-and-tans?' states: 'A twenty per cent sample (every fifth entry) of all those who joined the new RIC beginning in 1920 furnishes a representative population of 2,745 cases—2,302 Black-and-Tans and 443 Auxiliaries.' Since he does not distinguish between Irishmen who joined the Force in Ireland and Irishmen who joined the Force in the UK, his article tells us only how many of of those 2745 men were Irish--not how many of those Irish recruits may have been Black and Tans.

Herlihy acknowledges this point in his book The Black and Tans 1920-1921, and counts only those Irish men who joined the RIC in the UK as members of what he calls the 'Royal Irish Constabulary Special Reserve'--that is to say, as Black and Tans. According to Herlihy, out of 7684 Black and Tans, 381 were Irish--or about 5 per cent. That may not be a 'small number,' but it's certainly a small proportion.

Leeson is not entirely consistent, but his overall position is pretty clear: that the Black and Tans were by definition British (or at least, not Irish). In his book, and in his dissertation, and in an article extracted from his dissertation, he studies every Black and Tan who joined the RIC in October 1920, and excludes Irish recruits just for being Irish. (See his book, p. 244, note 3) He also quotes the testimony of Constable John Joseph Caddan to the American Commission on Conditions in Ireland. Caddan was a young Irishman who joined the RIC in London, to get back to Ireland, and was stationed in Galway town. Herlihy counts Caddan as a Black and Tan (see his book, p. 280), but Leeson does not.

Personally, I think both Leeson and Herlihy's positions are defensible. Since 'Black and Tan' was never an official designation, we are dealing with a fuzzy group of men who can legitimately be defined in different ways. But I think Lowe was misled by his sampling procedure, and that his conclusion--that 20 per cent of all Black and Tans were Irish--is clearly wrong. --Cliodule (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been able to get my hands on Herlihy's book, but I have seen a review by Seán William Gannon, a historian who has published on the topic at hand.. He commends the work for its historical detail in terms of individuals, but strongly disagrees with Herlihy on his view of the separateness of the Black & Tans recruited in Ireland. He also states Herlihy gives a figure of 8% Irish born among the British recruited RIC, which fits with the quotes that the Irish Times attributes to Herlihy.
Gannon contradicts Herlihy's view that the post 1920 RIC recruits in Ireland were trained differently to those recruited in England, receiving 6 months training in the same way as they had prior to 1920. Gannon: Comparisons between Irish-recruited constables’ dates of enlistment and first postings demonstrate that a plurality of these men received considerably less than six months’ training, ranging from three months to the four-to-six weeks afforded their counterparts recruited in Britain. Some received even less.
Gannon's argument is that the duties, uniform and training of Irish-recruited and British-recruited RIC men were not substantially different, and therefore they should be considered as essentially the same. He notes that the English and Irish recruits did not operate as separate units, but were fully integrated into the pre-1920 constabulary, so talk of a "Special Reserve" is simply false, and not mentioned in any contemporary source.
Gannon also considers Herlihy to have a strong bias, in the sense that he is a campaigner for the rehabilitation of the historical memory of the RIC. Herlihy's perpetuation of the "Special Reserve" myth is also part of this desire to ring-fence the "bad" English recruits from the "good" Irish ones.
Overall, Gannon's analysis would support Lowe's numbers.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to resolve question with new sections[edit]

We have scholars like Gannon, Brewer and Lowe who include all post-1919 recruits to the RIC as Black and Tans, and others such as Herlihy and (generally) Leeson who only count those raised in Britain. Would the way forward not be logically to include a "definitions" section where we recount these scholars' opinions? As well as this, we could have a "composition" section which included information on their origins, attributing the views to the scholars where necessary. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this moment. It will take a bit of time to get my books from the library in. Better slow and accurate. The Banner talk 10:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Boynamedsue: Indeed, good idea. Present the facts, and bear in mind you are under no obligation to wait upon the good folk at Leabharlanna Éireann. ——Serial 11:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the need for a hurried addition that will become controversial on its own. Maybe a draft/sandbox first? The Banner talk 13:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I expected, happened. The definition now leans heavily towards the opinion of Boynamedsue, inflating the Irish component. I do not want to say the section "Definition" is unreliable but is certainly needs work and better sourcing. It is still based on an extrapolation based on a sample of incomplete records. The Banner talk 10:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to the text where extrapolation occurs? What problems do you see with specific text?Boynamedsue (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources itself. The Banner talk 14:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No numbers are taken from the source, so your prior objection to the sampling method is not relevant. The text simply cites Lowe's classification system, which includes Irish-recruited RIC men as "Black and Tans".Boynamedsue (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No numbers indeed, you just discretely wiped it out. The Banner talk 17:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are just arguing the toss now. That is a diff linking to the removal of a single adjective which is not present in any of our sources, a week ago, which isn't even in the section of text we are discussing. I suspect, from your posts above, you hadn't even read the new section before commenting and are now flailing around for a justification to continue your objection. I'm going to leave this until you can say something substantive based on the policies of wikipedia. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you are out of argu7ments that you have to use insults? The Banner talk 09:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strengthen wording on Special Reserve[edit]

I've strengthened the wording on the term "Special Reserve", to indicate that academic historians say it is wrong. We have cited on the article Gannon, Leeson, Lowe, Abbot and Townsend, all academics, stating there is no such thing. We also have an article written by Leeson, the man who wrote the book on the Black and Tans, which is effectively a direct message to wikipedia saying 'Lads, you've f*&^%ed up with this "Special Reserve" b£$%^&*s'. The "some say this, some say that" approach wasn't giving sufficient WP:WEIGHT to the academic consensus.

The dissenting view of Herlihy is on the article attributed to him, but if it wasn't for his book, I think we might even have to remove the claim all together under the terms of WP:FRINGE. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_and_Tans&oldid=1206238700"