Talk:True Scotsman

Hong Kong handover

http://web.ripnet.com/~nimmos/under_the_kilt.html Here is the Black Watch incident in Hong Kong (along with more about 'kilt inspections'). There must be more about this in a reliable source someplace. Bridies (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Scotsman's kilt

As one edit has pointed out the lyrics of the The Scotsmans kilt are about this general subject, but don't mention the term. I'd like to expand the article to cover the whole thing as a culture/fashion thing but supporting media is thin.

Sources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Total Nonsense

"Though the tradition originated in the military, it has entered Scottish lore as a rite, an expression of light-hearted curiosity about the custom, even as a subversive gesture."

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any evidence to support any official policy of not wearing underwear. Mirrors in the floor - no physical evidence. Mirrors on sticks, again no physical evidence. With the advent of gassing in WWI, more skin coverage was required not less.

Yes it is quite possible that some kilted soldiers may have gone "regimental", but then again so did some soldiers in trousers.

The section on Kilt Inspections is just some editor's sexual fantasy. We should not be indulging his perversions. Kiltpin (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Good point about the mustard gas, that should be noted in the background sectionJmackaerospace (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks to researching mustard gas and kilts, this article has now been improved with contemporary sources that confirm official underwear policy of the highland regimentsJmackaerospace (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Following on from the above, I going to go ahead and implement some changes on the frankly unbelievable claims that wearing no underwear was in some way official Army policy. Just to list the problems with this claim;

• What possible reason could there ever be for this policy? I can't being to imagine any reason, whatsoever, for the army to believe it helped their military efforts that their men should be compelled to perform their duties with their genitalia exposed.
• The ridiculous tale of the mirror on the barrack room floor just isn't credible. Apart from being a farcical situation more fitting of a Carry On film, for this to work the Sargent Major would have to be practically standing on the soldier's toes in order to obtain the correct angle of vision, and also shining a light where the sun doesn't. If the Army wishes to know what a soldier is wearing they do not have to resort to ridiculous subterfuge, they use direct orders.
• I realise that this is sourced, but it appears to be to an opinion piece behind the News International paywall. I do not know what this says, but I'm not convinced of its reliability.
• The tale of the mirror on a golf club is at least physically possible, but as it pointed out above, what possible reason would the army have for insisting their conscripts exposed their most sensitive parts to mustard gas? The cite used to explain why this may have ceased with use of the kilt makes absolutely no mention of wearing no underwear, just the problems of bare legs and therefore trying "long stockings and woollen bloomers". You'd think that it would mention bare other things, had they any grounding in fact, wouldn't you?
• Frankly the whole thing smacks of a fanciful tale that has become "truth" in the frequent retelling.

I'm not discounting that not wearing underwear may have been a habit practised by some within some regiments, but think that some much better sources are required to demonstrate that it was an enforced policy. Despite what Jmackaerospace says above, I don't see any on this article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue of mustard gas has nothing to do with underwear, but with the withdrawal of the kilt itself (and the associated bare legs) as front-line uniform. Your deletion of it doesn't really stand up. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it is about the withdrawal of the kilt (and the associated bare legs), and therefore has very little to do with the subject of this article. Leaving it in is misleading the reader to believe it has something to do with not wearing underwear under the kilt. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The Times is a reliable source; WP:PAYWALL is no issue. bridies (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

But a reliable source of what? We have no idea what it says or how it says it. Just that someone says it repeats this tale. For all we know it may state the tale is fictional. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

We assume it says what "someone says" (the article says) it does. It's presented as anecdotal and a piece in the Times is enough for that. I read it when it was added and I think I've had noticed if it was in fact given as fiction rather than a reported anecdote. If you think it's wrong, the onus is on you to verify it. bridies (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Mustard Gas and Veracity

There is an enourmous wealth of first and second hand testimony from former soldiers that validates everything in the "Background" section, however this does not constitute Non-Original-Research or meet Notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is not reasonable to cite anecdotal data in wikipedia - but neither is it reasonable to pretend such data does not exist: "Regimental Fashion" was one of the British Army's enforced traditions during the First World War and after; until as late as the 1960's. "I don't believe it!" is not a good attitute to take to established facts, however distasteful you may find them. I certainly find some of the things I have discovered in the course of researching this article fairly distressing, and puts the tradition in a very different light for me personally.

I have read a lot of very interesting discussion backed up with snippets of evidence since creating this page, but unfortunately this subject is so far not been the topic of study for a serious historian. The usefulness versus the vulnerability of the kilt in the trenches was clearly debated even at the time, however we only have secondhand accounts of what the decisions were. I know for a fact, but cannot provide a cite, that underwear was issued to to 'some' kilted regiments in the later stages of the war, and that 'some' commanding officers refused to let troops wear them.

What emerges is an exercise in contradiction - some kilted regiments may have worn underwear, some may not, some commanders may have ordered underwear, some may have forbidden it. Everything that can be established beyond doubt is in the article: It was a tradition, it continues to be a tradition, and ultimately the kilt was withdrawn from combat use due to vulnerability to chemical attack. Jmackaerospace (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=185658&sectioncode=26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmackaerospace (talk • contribs) 12:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture Source

The picture shown in this article needs a reference to where it came from. The file source's description is actually rather snide and sarcastic, obviously added by the uploader, and is suspiciously lacking any detail on just where the uploader found it. It very well could be a modern day piece done in the style of old works.Legitimus (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Found it! I'd forgotten about this until something reminded me. The picture is "Le prétexte" by French publisher Aaron Martinet. Published in 1815 when Paris was occupied after Waterloo. There are many similar French illustrations from this same event. The original is in color and they have it at the British Museum. Don't know why the uploader was so evasive about it. considering it does appear to be authentic.Legitimus (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)