Talk:Black and Tans

NPOV?

Is it me or is this article not NPOV?

Easily said, but now you must reason. Djegan 00:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, though their actions are no doubt atrocious, the article reeks a little too much of a rant based on too much hearsay and too few factual resources. Some elaboration and citations of claims would leave this article much improved. opelwerk 20:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its you. I can assure you it is quite restrained compared to what I would have written about that lot.

An irrelevant statement considering this is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. -- Necrothesp 20:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Difficult article

This is always going to be a difficult article to get right as the Black and Tan's actions no doubt varied from place to place and only the larger atrocities were recorded. I've heard alot of similar first hand accounts over the years of their actions in my local area which I am fairly sure are accurate but I couldn't cite anything written. Allegations of state sponsered terroism may seem a little strong but that in the twenteth century government troops were indescrimitly physicly attacking catholics because of their relegion can't be described many other ways, esspecially considering Llyod George was well aware throughout.

This article needs to be rewritten

When I get a chance, at some point in the near future, I am going to re-write this entire article:

--it does not reflect the results of recent research by historians like Elizabeth Malcolm, W. J. Lowe, and myself;

(Despite the fact that it relies heavily on Dr. Malcolm's article on the subject in the Oxford Companion to Irish History.)

--it contains a number of mistakes;

(In fact, there is a mistake in the first line: the Black and Tans were not the RIC's Reserve Force. The Reserve was a separate force quartered at Phoenix Park, most of whose members came from the North: John Brewer interviewed one of its members for his oral history of the RIC.)

--and it is not NPOV.

(It does not mention, for example, the fact that many reprisals were committed by Irish members of the RIC--a fact to which Dr. Malcolm alludes in her article.)

Dr. David Leeson, PhD, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada

Justified atrocities

"..atrocities were committed (in most cases as just retribution for Irish brutality).."

I'm astonished that anyone would seek to justify or excuse atrocities against civilian populations. I've removed the reference to 'in most cases as just retribution for Irish brutality'.

I would have thought that the sentence was fine just so long as the word just is removed, provided that a cite can be provided that most atrocities were committed as retribution. Saying they were retribution then becomes nothing more than a statement of fact; it's only POV when we start saying that this justifies them (or, for that matter, if we start saying that it doesn't justify them). Binabik80 01:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Eric Barnett

The King made no secret of their horror at the behaviour of Crown forces which made international headlines, damaging British credibility. All Catholic's were branded even those who carried King Georges papers with appointment as an officer and served durring World War I, with distinction. I state the words " And we hereby Command them to Obay you as their superior Officer." Forced immigration was their plight as no protection could be had! Signed: someone who knows what happened. Terrorism no's no boundary, nor do's bigotry by those improperly trained and ill equiped to perform the task at hand.The British & Irish peaple are good peaple if they can see beyond their own pride.

M. Barnett. I am not a fan of the crown, but I have to call "bullspit" on that claim. That kind of claim requests and requires a citation. I studied the Rising and WWI in some detail, and nothing like that was required for Commonwealth Officers, Catholic or Jewish or Anglican, at least not that I've seen. At least during that time period. Catholic officers surely faced some discrimination, but nothing like that. All British soldiers were/are required to swear loyalty to the "Crown in Parliament," in any case. Ireland was never subject to conscription during the Great War, either. It was the "looming conscription" that led to the rebellion, as well as timely German aid, delivered by one Roger Casement. In other words, please cite your ancedote. V. Joe 08:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

'Saying they were retribution then becomes nothing more than a statement of fact'- Em, highly unlikely considering we are talking about the British crown forces of occupation taking action in Ireland against the native Irish. Only a British person could even attempt to claim that the colonial occupiers were taking "retribution" upon the, em, natives. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. El Gringo 23:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is the rub. Define British. The point is that a large number of 'native' Irish saw themselves as British, and still do on both sides of the border. Ireland was part of the UK and Irishmen and woman had exactly the same rights as anyone else living in Wales, Scotland or England. Irishmen and women sat in the House of Lords and Commons as well as holding senior appointments in the civil and military forces. Britain has even had a Irish Prime Minister. Shock horror, not all of these Irishmen were Protestants either! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallonn (talk • contribs) 09:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

El Gringo, please challenge a person on the content of their argument rather than who they are. Logica 13:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

its actually depressing to see the Colonialist revisionist crap here. The IRA fought against the military forces occupying their country, the British military retaliated by killing civilians. There is no way you can justify that. If the Iraqi miltary forces went to England and started shooting random people you wouldnt say that they're justified to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.208.181 (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that if you remove the "just" it could be seen as a mere statement of facts, but that doesn't make it neutral. Why the need to put the reason of the actions commited by the military? That alone makes it impartial, even if it looks like, formally, to be just a fact. Every attrocity commited will always have it's justification. It's like if you say that "in Rwanda the Hutus murdered the Tutsi (in most cases because of the horrors committed by the previous Tutsi rule)" or that "during the latin american dictatorships the military committed torture (in most cases, because of the communists attempt to reach power)". It is NOT neutral, even though it looks like to be a fact. The reason for chosing to bring this fact after the statemente pressuposes justification. --201.62.188.29 (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Britannica Encyclopedia's take on the Black and Tans

Well, here's how the above mentioned encyclopedia start their entry on the Black and Tans: 'In their efforts to thwart the terrorism of the Irish Republican Army...'Well, that was enough for me. Sometimes, just sometimes, you can tell a book by its cover. El Gringo 17:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is American. It has been American since the early 20th century. Just because it is "Britannica" doesn't mean it's British. You think Domino's Pizza is Italian? I hope this kind of presumptive thinking does not creep into your article edits. I shall be keeping an eye out. Logica 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Easter Rising

Like it or not the Rising was not a protest, it was an armed uprising. Rightfully so, or not, irrelevant, it was a revolt, not a protest, as IRA men, British soldiers and Irish and British Civillians all lost thier lives. I'm going to change that if it isn't fixed soon V. Joe 08:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry all, but after brief reflection, decided to add an immediate fix. V. Joe 08:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Black and Tans and British government were painted in too good of a light in this article. The Black and Tans were the often the worst of British society as the British government actively recruited criminals. Also the British failed to control these men as they were allowed to do whatever they wanted.

Please leave your signiture if you want your point to be taken seriously. Logica 13:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

History should be neutral in its interpretation of what happened. It is funny how if we do not like what we read we condemn it as biased. The British Government did not recruit criminals as Temporary Constables in the RIC (Black and Tans). The majority were ex-soldiers, which is not a supries when you consider that the vast majority of young adult males at the time had served in the armed forces, and had to have a record of 'Good' conduct recorded on their service records before they could join. Many had been decorated for gallantry, including one VC recipient. These men were not the dregs of society, but they were deeply affected by their experiences in the war. One has only to look at the RIC records held by both the British and Irish governments to dispel the hackneyed myth that the Black and Tans were the dregs of society. They were poorly trained policemen dealing with what they believed to be at best a rebellion and at worst criminal violence in what they believed to be part of their own country. And yes, over a third of them were recruited from what are now the 26 counties of the Irish Republic. Many more were from the North and a significant number were the children of Irishmen who had emigrated to Liverpool and Glasgow. Just read their service records for proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallonn (talk • contribs) 09:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Their recruitment posters said "men wanted for a dirty job in Ireland". "Gallantry" was conspicuous by its absence during their time in Ireland. Most had a good idea of what they were signing up for. Judge them on their deeds, not the fine words on their records. The non-Irish Tans may have seen themselves as fighting in "part of their own country", but without regarding the inhabitants as equal fellow countrymen and women. Between them and the Auxies, no-one did more to bring about Irish independence.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The famous Limerick hunt

The Adare Scarteen Hunt used (uses?) black-and-tan foxhounds.

• Is the name "Black and Tan Hunt" its official title or just a common nickname? Or perhaps it changed it after the negative connotations?
• I presume the Hunt used/s traditional riding gear coloured hunting pink, not black-and-tan
• Presumably, the name of the breed of dog came before the name of the hunt. Is there proof the RIC force was named after the Hunt rather than named after the breed of dog? Either is plausible.

jnestorius^(talk) 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ben & Jerry's

Do we really need that section on the Ben & Jerry's "ice cream controversy"? As far as I am concerned, it really adds nothing to the article. In a few years, the ice cream will have been forgotten, but the historical importance of the Black and Tans themselves, and their notorious activities, will not have diminished. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Having received, after all these months, no response to this query, I have removed the section in question. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of "quote"

Not sure what connection the quote (interestingly referred to only as "quote") about police being ordered to shoot at possible innocents has to do with the Black and Tan. The person quoted is also not introduced; the context is thus unclear. I suggest the "quote" be expanded, or the section deleted. 81.129.216.255 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)SM

That's a good call. The reference is also dodgy, with no explanatory information given, just a website, which could be of questionable validity. Expansion, and a better reference, are in order. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The speech was relayed by Michael Kelly, John McNamara, Rev. M. English and D.F Crowley to the American Commission on Conditions in Ireland in 1920 (p 66 Evidence on Conditions in Ireland, and formed a critical part of their report. ( Kelly and McNamara, former RIC Listowel, were both present at time of speech). Peter Cotrell's claim that only Mee's account 'survived' is evidently rubbish. RashersTierney (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Added:

---

---

Instructions to Listowel RIC, 19 June 1920

See also: Listowel mutiny

On 19 June 1920 Lieutenant-Colonel Gerald Smyth is alleged to have made a speech to the ranks of the Listowel RIC in which was reported as having said:

“Police and military will patrol the country roads at least five nights a week. They are not to confine themselves to the main roads but make across the country, lie in ambush, take cover behind fences near roads, and when civilians are seen approaching shout: 'Hands up!' Should the order be not obeyed, shoot, and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching carry their hands in their pockets or are in any way suspicious looking, shoot them down. You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped and you are bound to get the right persons sometimes. The more you shoot the better I will like you; and I assure you that no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man and I will guarantee that your names will not be given at the inquest.”

At the time it was reported that the tone of the speech proved too much for many of the RIC men who refused to carry out the order and one officer, Constable Jeremiah Mee, put his gun on the table and called Smyth a murderer. He and 13 others resigned, most joining or assisting the Irish Republican Army. Mee became a confidant and ally of Michael Collins.

Less than a month after his controversial instruction to the unit Smyth was shot dead by an IRA party led by Dan "Sandow" O'Donovan.

---

---

What is your point, and please sign your posts. RashersTierney (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My point is encyclopedic, WikiQuote is the appropriate place to list words without context.99.135.170.179 (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, your 'context' is so hedged as to amount to weasel wording. Be bold. I have no problem with incorporating this properly, rather than just have it sitting in its own section. Lets agree a formula of words. The testimony of Kelly would be a good starting point. RashersTierney (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do the recent changes head in an acceptable direction?99.135.170.179 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Bluntly, no they don't. Please stop your disruptive eds. We can get this right here if you want to reach consensus. RashersTierney (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your position is complete removal of context?99.135.170.179 (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No. As I said, lets agree the wording of the context here. I've made a few attempts, but my slow typing has led to several edit conflicts. Shall we try again? For a start this statement,
At the time it was reported that the tone of - is redundant.

Further, there is little dispute as to the content of Smyth's speech and it was certainly not the tone, but the content, that led to the mutiny/resignations/outrage of the RIC men. RashersTierney (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The (incrementally expanding) quote probably belongs at Listowel mutiny, where it is curiously absent. This section is so POV-ridden it need to be substantially re-written. Please discuss further edits here. Its what this page is for. RashersTierney (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify your concerns, I'm not sure where your specific objections are.99.135.170.179 (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Accusing me of Original research, considering you blatant POV pushing, is rich. I have no intention of engaging in an edit war with you. I have asked you several times to discuss edits here, but you insist on having your way. This disruption will have to stop. RashersTierney (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm genuinely requesting clarification.99.135.170.179 (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Kelly's account is at the start of this thread. If you haven't read it, there can be little wonder why you might be confused. Please read my posts, they're intended mostly for your benefit. RashersTierney (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, should the quote be moved to Listowel mutiny ? RashersTierney (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me consider that - I'm of two minds on this, either the event illustrates the Black and Tans or it's an isolated incident over the space of a few weeks specific to Listowel. I think the legendary aspect and it's propoganda impact on the Black and Tans can't be overestimated and therefore - although it may not be specific to the unit as a whole - it colors it so much that it can not be separated.99.135.170.179 (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you still 'of two minds'? Consensus does not mean you have a veto over edits here. RashersTierney (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I see no reason to delete the content from this article. It's a quite notable and important part of the history of the subject.99.135.170.179 (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why you think it should be so extensively quoted here, while it is entirely absent from the main article (Listowel mutiny). RashersTierney (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote has been a consensus addition, and prominent feature, of this article for over 2 years - uncommented upon as dozens of editors made literally 100's of edits in the interim. You're the first to object. - 99.135.170.179 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that was before you made this a sub-head linked to the main article. The quote should be transferred to the 'parent' article. There is hardly a need to have it in both. As you say, it is significant and certainly it should be referred to here. RashersTierney (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring

Hiya, I'm popping in as an uninvolved admin. I have no preference on the content of this article, but I'm seeing a lot of people reverting, often with edit summaries such as "seek agreement on the talkpage". However, most of the people who are reverting, do not seem themselves to be engaging in any kind of discussion here on the talkpage. Since this is a highly controversial topic area, could I encourage all parties to work a little harder at discussion, or at least link to areas where such discussions are taking place? Thanks, --Elonka 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the interest. I have tried to engage this editor in a meaningful way including on my and his/her/their Talkpage. Invariably the answer comes back that my concerns are unclear or whatever, but the substantive issues are always avoided. I no longer believe this ed. is contributing in good faith. His answer to my question as to how long he has been editing here - eight years (amended from a claim of 'over nine years'??) - is frankly not credible given his apparent inability to reference correctly, provide reliable refs and conduct a constructive debate.RashersTierney (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also there is a history of IPs appearing, not engaging in talk but just using edit summaries on Irish articles. In the case of this editor its over several pages. Reverts have been to try and get the IP to the talk page --Snowded ^TALK 21:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverts targeted towards a particular editor are not a good idea, especially when they are no-discussion reverts. Nothing should be reverted unless either (a) it's blatant vandalism; (b) the edit being reverted was made in violation of clear talkpage consensus; or (c) a cogent reason for the revert is provided on the talkpage. By "cogent", this means something like, "I reverted this edit because the sources used don't have anything to do with the subject of the article". Not "I reverted this edit because I don't trust the editor." It's a bad idea to fill up the talkpage with accusations about other editors' motivations. Instead, a better way to proceed is to keep the talkpage discussions focused strictly on civil and collegial discussion about the article itself. And rather than reverting, try changing text, to find compromise wording. That will be a much better way to ensure longlasting changes, especially in powderkeg topic areas. --Elonka 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As a general principle I agree with you. However when controversial pages are subject to attack by IPs with a clear POV, refusing to use the talk pages there are few alternatives. --Snowded ^TALK 04:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Black and Tans were not the Reserve Force

This is a terrible article that contains numerous factual errors.

One of the most egregious of these errors comes right at the beginning, where the Black and Tans are referred to as the "Reserve Force."

This is not correct. As Elizabeth Malcolm clearly states on p. 48 of her recent book The Irish Policeman 1822-1922:

"The third element of the RIC was the 'reserve force' established by statute ( 2&3 Vic., c.75) in 1839 and based at the Phoenix Park depot, but capable of being deployed in any part of the country where extra men were urgently required. Originally 200 men, plus 12 district inspectors and head constables, the reserve was boosted during the Famine to 400 in 1846 and 600 in 1847, before being reduced to 400 again after the end of the Land War in 1882. The reserve, a permanent force under the control of the inspector general, was paid for centrally. It could be deployed rapidly, without the prior approval of either Dublin Castle or of local magistrates. men from the counties and the depot were posted to the reserve for varying periods and in it they gained experience of policing major outbreaks of public disorder."

What is more, this actual reserve force remained in existence until the RIC was disbanded. In fact, one of the men interviewed by J. D. Brewer for his book The Royal Irish Constabulary: An Oral History talks about serving in the RIC's real reserve force.

The Black and Tans, by contrast, were part of the 'free quota'--the main RIC force that was deployed throughout the country. They lived and worked in police barracks alongside Irish constables, and no official distinction was made between the two. This is clear from D. M. Leeson's dissertation, and from other sources. I could even point you to the relevant documents preserved at the National Archives of the United Kingdom.

In fact, as far as I can determine, this Wikipedia article is the only source for this mis-identification, which everyone here seems to have swallowed without question. But this error has been allowed to persist for so long that it has begun to creep into other documents--including other Wikipedia articles. It should be removed at once.--Cliodule (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. RashersTierney (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats it be bold. BigDunc 17:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the lead and hatnote to reflect the concerns above. You will find that the source of the error is ref # 1. RashersTierney (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you check the Revision History, I think you'll find that ref #1 could not be the source of this error: it was published in 2007, but the error appears in this article at least as far back as 2006. More likely this article was the source of the error in ref #1.--Cliodule (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Article needs to be re-written by author who doesnt have a post colonial inferiority complex.