Talk:15th (Scottish) Infantry Division

Infobox conversion

Converted infobox to new Infobox Military Unit as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. —ERcheck @ 23:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Related or not to the First World War division

The First World War formation was raised as part of Kitchner's Army, and was disbanded following the end of the war. The formation that was raised in 1939, was raised as part of the Territorial Army after the 52nd Division started the duplication process. As Perry highlights, there was no rules in place to state what names or numbers duplicated formations had to use. The 52nd's duplicate, took on the name and the number of the formation from the First World War. However, I have yet to see a source that has suggested they were one and the same formation. We would need a source that binds these two formations (from different time periods, with different names - even if only slightly - and different founding histories) to say they are both the same. Even the division's own history doesn't make that claim, although it does highlight the connection (via numbers and insignia) and refers to the First World War division as part of its ancestry.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I have not tried to argue in the article that they are the same formation. However, as you've seen in the 1AD argument, 'ancestry' = same formation, as far as my thinking goes. I cannot fathom your idea that they are separate.

British regiments have historically raised both regular, and various types of reserve battalions (inc as far as the extreme example the Pals Battalions). British brigades have includes such both type battalions. So have both British armoured and infantry divisions. We don't segregate by whether the battalions of the same regiments happened to be regular or reserve.

You seem to be ultimately arguing that it the battalion that the British Army claims ultimate lineage to, not the regiment, which to make an understated remark, is not supported by sources.

But that aside, we are arguing about a hatnote in the article, and the use of the word Unrelated. 'Unrelated' stretches the case too far, as you say yourself in your last sentence of your note. You have to be able to reference 'unrelated'!! Try 'related,' which would be a word that would be supported by the sources and your last sentence, or simply don't try to make a claim that is not supported by any source - which would match 'For the First World War formation, see 15 Scottish Division'.

For the moment, and as a trial compromise, I will change the wording to 'related,' and I will not merge the articles, which was my intent as soon as I saw that this was an outlier in the divisional histories. Happy to get your thoughts. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The merging of articles about Kitchner Army divisions with TA 2nd-line divisions, would be strongly opposed (if not reverted right off the bat, and I doubt you would find support for such a move regardless).

I am simply following the sources. The sources indicate that the divisions formed in 1939 could adopt whatever style that they wanted, and that they were not the reformation of Kitchner Army divisions regardless if names and numbers were the same: essentially two separate lineages and histories.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The difference here is that sources state the modern 1st Division holds a history dating back to 1809, whereas the sources for the 15th Scottish indicate two separate formations: one formed as part of the K2 Army Group and disbanded at the end of the First World War, and a new formation created in 1939 as a duplicate of the 52nd Lowland Division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

"The sources indicate that the divisions formed in 1939 could adopt whatever style that they wanted, and that they were not the reformation of Kitchner Army divisions regardless if names and numbers were the same: essentially two separate lineages and histories." What *sources* unequivocally disavow *any* linkages between the same First World War names-and-numbers and Second World War names-and-numbers? Which sources say that they were *not* the same divisions? Show me some!! I would argue that the newly forming TA divisions, and the TA communities were specifically looking for antecendants, precedent, that they could use - and often found them!! Buckshot06 (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

We keep playing this game. I show you sources, and you disagree with them. I already pointed out the division's own history, and Perry within the article explaining the liberty applied. How about you prove there is a connection, then we can talk - otherwise I am not wasting my time again.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah. You're talking about

1. Perry. "As Perry highlights, there was no rules in place to state what names or numbers duplicated formations had to use." That does not unequivocally say that they are not the same formation, but doesn't say it's not, either!!

2. Divisional history. "..division's own history doesn't make that claim [that the two divisions are the same], although it does highlight the connection (via numbers and insignia) and refers to the First World War division as part of its ancestry." Now I would say that that sentence proves the connection!!

The problem we're going round and round about is that I read a source that doesn't make an unequivocal claim one way or the other, and I assume there is a connection, because that's the way/approach I think, and you read the same source, and assume there isn't a connection - because that's the way/approach that you're thinking. The main challenge is in our two minds and has little to do with the sources unless they're absolutely crystal clear on addressing this specific point.

Unless Perry, the divisional history, or any source for any of these division, absolutely clearly says that 'they are the same formation' or 'the division draws its history from..' etc, neither of us will be happy!! Buckshot06 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)