Talk:88th Regiment of Foot (Connaught Rangers)

Duplicate page?

There is another article relating to this topic it seems - Connaught Rangers. The other article seems more comprehensive than this one, so perhaps this could be merged, or a redirect put on this page to the other? I'm not able to do this at the moment as I am concentrating on other things, but perhaps someone who is working on this topic might be able to look into this subject? Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I had a bit of a look at the other page and it seems that the 88th (Connaught Rangers) and the Connaught Rangers are different regiments, as indeed this article states (wish I had a saftey catch, sometimes). The latter having been formed by the amalgamation of the first and the 94th. In this regard it is probably okay for there to be two separate pages. That is just my opinion. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

I believe that this article could be improved by addressing the following issues:

• Referencing: addition of in-line citations and some reference materials;
• Coverage: expansion of the article to discuss in more detail;
• Structure: inclusion of notes, references, see also and external links sections where appropriate.

Just a few ideas. Once this has been done, it might be an idea to seek re-assessment. This can be done by placing the article name in the appropriate section on WP:MHA. Hope this helps. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"Devils Own"

The placing of the traditional nickname'The Devil's Own' adjacent to the regimental title is possibly misleading, especially without further mention or explanation elsewhere in the article. Other regiments did have a collooquial name attached to their official title e.g. The Buffs, The Black Watch, The Cameronians. This was not the case with the Connaught Rangers.

Although one of the better known regimental nicknames, as with many other regiments its origins appear obscure. In this case it seems to be often attributed to Major General Sir Thomas Picton during the Peninsular war, without a direct attribution I am aware of, while the earliest known written mention may only date from a mention in the 'Dublin University Magazine' in the mid C19th.

Given that 'Devil's Own'as a nickname is so closely associated with the regiment, it would merit a separate paragraph or section giving reliable references to the origin of this tradition, rather than appearing as it does now at the head of the article. JF42 (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Please feel free to include a separate paragraph if you can find the sources. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Update: The earliest reference to 'Devil's Own' so far is found in 1861 and only in a general compendium of nicknames, with the attribution to Lieut. Gen. Thomas Picton during the Peninsular War. Copies of this entry appear fairly regularly thereafter. However, there is no mention in the regimental history of 1837 or in the prolific writings of William Grattan, formerly of 88th, nor does it appear in extensive press surveys of the earlier period. The only epithet Grattan attributed to Picton was "Connaught foot-pads" in a single outburst for which he later apologised. His preferred term of address thereafter was 'Rangers of Connaught.' Other epithets such as "ragged rascals", "blackguards" - and "honeysuckers"- appear occasionally but without firm basis. More anon.JF42 (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)