Talk:Black and Tans

message: 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)
thread_title:  some sources count a "small number" of Irishmen as black & tans 

message: @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)
replies: text: Yeah I believe a lock for 24 hour is needed Zwphyr (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

text: @SnowdogU77: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism in response to Biden comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The sources itself. The Banner talk 14:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No numbers indeed, you just discretely wiped it out. The Banner talk 17:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So you are out of argu7ments that you have to use insults? The Banner talk 09:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to resolve question with new sections

message: 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)
thread_title:  Strengthen wording on Special Reserve