Talk:Auxiliary Division

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ireland (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated ?-Class)
MILHIST 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality assessment scale.


I'd like to see the adjective "retarded" replaced with "developmentally delayed", if that term is also used in Irish and British English. 03:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not (we'd probably say "with learning difficulties"), and it certainly wasn't used anywhere in 1921! -- Necrothesp 12:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

In regard to two recent edits--

1. The "18-man patrol" wiped out at Kilmichael was No. 2 Platoon of C Company: see documents in NA HO 45/20096, in which Castle, police, and military officials bicker over this platoon's unpaid mess bill.

2. I would like to see some more evidence that the Major Mackinnon assassinated in Ireland on 15 April 1921 was the same man as the Captain Mackinnon buried in Aberdeen (Allenvale) Cemetery. The following discrepancies need to be explained: their different ranks (Major versus Captain); their different first names (John Alister versus Roy Livingston); their different decorations (Every source I have examined agrees that Major Mackinnon was awarded the DCM and MM; Captain Mackinnon was merely mentioned in despatches, twice); and their different ages (according to Richard Abbot's Police Casualties in Ireland, Major Mackinnon was 32, while Captain Mackinnon was 29). Their surnames and death-dates may simply be an interesting coincidence. --Cliodule 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In regard to a recent edit:

I was strongly tempted to revert "other ranks". While it is true that the term "enlisted men" is not used in the British armed services, I am not British: I'm Canadian; and I don't appreciate having a perfectly suitable term in Canadian English edited out as a mistake.

What's more, British naval enlisted men are not called "other ranks": they're called "ratings". Some Auxiliaries were former naval officers: out of a sample of 247 Temporary Cadets I found 17 who had served in the Royal Navy; so the more general term may actually be more accurate.

I finally decided to leave "other ranks" as it was because I cannot confirm that any of those former naval officers had previously served as ratings. The evidence for promotion from the ranks is primarily numismatic, and I do not recall finding any former naval officers who had, for example, been awarded both the DSC and the DSM.

If I do find such evidence in the future, I am going to revisit this article and revert "other ranks" to "enlisted men." --Cliodule 05:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your nationality is irrelevant. This is an article about a British subject and therefore, under Wikipedia style guidelines, should be written in British English and using British terminology. I therefore didn't edit it out as a mistake, but as a matter of style. Even if former RN ratings did serve (still a very small percentage of the total), the correct term would then be "other ranks and ratings", not enlisted men, a term never used in the British Armed Forces. -- Necrothesp 09:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong--again. The Wikipedia style guidelines say that 'An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation.' It says nothing about any requirement to use the British Army's own jargon when making references to that institution: that 'requirement' is your own invention.
The term 'enlisted men' may not be used in the British armed forces, but that is irrelevant: besides being used in Canadian English, the expression 'enlisted men' is also most definitely used in British English. I just checked the catalogue of the National Archives, using the search terms 'enlisted men,' and found no less than 645 references to 'enlisted men' in British, colonial, and foreign armed forces. For example:
--'The Justices also acted as Recruiting Commissioners and details of volunteers or enlisted men appearing before them are recorded.'
--'The volumes cover enlisted men only.'
--'The registers give full personal details of enlisted men, including casualties, in roughly alphabetical arrangement in date order of arrival in Madras.'
--'Memorandum on the availability of enlisted men in India who might be sent to China.'
--'Stalag (Stammlager), although not always the case, a camp for NCOs and enlisted men'
--'Temporary Commissions or commissions in the Indian Army Reserve of Officers were therefore granted to British Army officers, NCOs and enlisted men of the required educational standard.'
--'The registers give full personal details of enlisted men, including casualties, in a rougly alphabetical arrangement in date order of arrival in Bengal.'
--'Employment and payment of enlisted men as stenographic reporters in military government courts .'
--'Malay States Guides: statement of particulars regarding the number of enlisted men.'
--'War Office. Status for purposes of pension and allowances of enlisted men, Forage Department, Army Service Corps.'
Etc., etc. In light of this clear and incontrovertible evidence that the expression 'enlisted men' is both current and correct in British English, I am going to revert your edit. --Cliodule 11:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
the information above seems to separate other ranks into NCOs and enlisted men. Is there any evidence that lance corporals and privates were raised to officers without intervening promotions? if not then other ranks seems to be correctBacknumber1662 (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on this subject says clearly that "other ranks" means "those personnel who are not commissioned officers." That is to say: it is synonymous with "enlisted men." If someone can provide me with clear evidence that ORs is used only to mean non-commissioned officers--in other words, that the Wikipedia article on this subject is wrong and requires revision--then I will concede this point. But not until then.--Cliodule (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)