Talk:Caubeen

Disruptive editing

For so much disruptive editing and reverting i have to say i'm amazed that not a single discussion has taken place here in regards to the issues. It is clear MFIreland has an agenda and is intent on enforcing it especially without discussion, whilst others are intent on reverting without discussion.

I would like to ask all editing of the article to stop for the time being and have any issues discussed here first.

I reverted to the last version before MFIrlenad made big changes to the article - all of which undiscussed and involved the deletion of some sourced relevant information that did its best to turn the article from an article on a hat of Irish origin to an article on a British/Commonwelath headdress. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

On a side note the article does need source improving amongst other things - but getting this stupid edit warring to end is more important. Consensus should be agreed upon. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As a second side note. MFIreland there was no reason for the removal of the entire Glengarry section, even of the sourced parts of it. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

In fact i have requested this article be protected until you guys talk the problems out as i don't think you guys will unless so. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have repeatedly made discussion on this article, see User talk:Lloydelliot10, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. All my edits have references from reliable sources.--MFIreland • ^Talk 00:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you finally you come to talk. Though all three instances you've provided of "discussion" and are only to do with the Glengarry in relation to the Irish army and in all instances are to the same editor instead of here where all editors can see it. They show no dicussion at all on the rest of the changes you are attempting to force on the article despite reverts from 3 or 4 editors.

If you want to alter the article to make the caubeen a purely British/Commonwealth army thing and ignore its non-British aspects right from the word go - try to see if everyone else agrees to it which clearly they don't. As they don't, please try to discuss it and try to see what consensus can be reached on what to do on the article. There was no warrant for the deletion of the Glengarry section or "Other users" section - especially sourced information. The caubeen from sources is more than just a British military headdress so you shouldn't try to impose from the start of the article that it is. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said above all my edits have references from reliable sources. I have also made edits of use in Canada and the USA with refs and not just the UK.--MFIreland • ^Talk 01:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You have also removed sourced information and are attempting to alter the article's direction from a hat of Irish origin as hinted to in the intro to a hat thats simply British/Commonwealth. Your edits have been as already stated reverted by 3 or 4 editors so when you constantly keep redoing your changes despite the fact no-one seems to agree with them you should learn to take it to talk and see what everyone thinks about your changes. Otherwise you are acting as if you have the right to force your changes on the article and are simply edit-warring. The fact you don't even feel the need to even discuss your edits (other than the Glengarry) even when they are troublesome is bad enough.

Whether this article is locked or not, it would be in its best interests and yours considering how many "reverts" you've made, to stop editing the article for the time being and just talk it out and await the opinion of everyone else involved, which may take days. And not just you - i posted comments at Hohenloh and Lloyd to refrain from making edits to the article until its discussed. You have some good stuff to add to the article but it (the article) needs rewritten and the best place to do it and any changes you'd like is here in the talk page. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Canada also falls under British/Commonwelath by the way. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Caubeen/Rewrite

The above link is a temporary page i've created where we can rewrite the article and add to everything thats discussed, sourced and agreed upon. This way we can rewrite the article and once we have agreed with the end result we can pop into the actual article. This instead of constant edit-warring makes better sense. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Each section can be discussed as a sub-section of this main section.

Other Users

Right the following was removed several times by MFIreland but half kept in his later revert.

The caubeen is also worn by the Ancient Order of Hibernians an Irish Catholic fraternal organization.

The following added by MFIreland once he realised this was a sourced statement on the caubeen added the following:

On the groups website they claim the caubeen is the "distinctive headgear of the Irish warriors of old" despite the fact that the caubeen does not seem to figure largely in Irish history.

The bit on "fact that the caubeen does not" is not testified in the source. The source says "seems" which is a long way from "fact". It's location here is also dubious as the AOH statement isn't saying that it figures largely in Irish history or what exact kind of warrior (rank and file or commander etc.). Though this statement should be retained but maybe put in the articles introduction.

We should also expand the AOH section to include what part of it actually wears the caubeen as the source shows quite clearly it is in reference to the honour guard of one divisional branch of the AOH in a Californian county.

So i propose we change the section to:

Other uses

The caubeen is also worn by the honour guard of the Division One, Orange County, California branch of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, an Irish Catholic fraternal organization. On their website they remark: "And we wear the green caubeen and carry the pike, the distinctive headgear and weapon of the Irish warriors of old".

Caubeen's are also sold as womens wooling winter hat by an Irish hat retailer.

Mabuska ^(talk) 11:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

For references, official websites and publications should be used as they are reliable unlike private run blog like websites.--MFIreland • ^Talk 19:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you yourself not use a private blog as a source in the Glenanne article? Anyways that AOH website isn't a blog, otherwise any website is a blog. It also is only backing up a statement by them - not a statement by anyone else. The rewritten version makes this obviously clear as to who is making this statement. Whether they are right or wrong doesn't make a difference, the section still only declares their viewpoint on it and sources it.

Though i find it ironic your remarks on reliable sources seeing as you have previously used a source that didn't even state "Glenanne gang" but only "gang" in it to back up its links to attacks. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I did use reliable references on the Glenanne gang article, the Barron Report, the Cassel Report, the PFC website (whos info comes the 2 reports), Belfast Telegraph etc. --MFIreland • ^Talk 20:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You used a page from the PFC website as a source for "Glenanne gang" when that page never mentioned them at all. None-the-less Glenanne isn't an issue here, i was using it as a comparison in response to your talk on using reliable sources. Regardless its off-topic now. So have you a real arguement with this section proposal? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you intend to just let the edit-lock run out MFIreland, i wouldn't bother as you'll end up getting it locked even longer next time. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You are the one that asked for it to be blocked not me.--MFIreland • ^Talk 17:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you hadn't of been edit-warring the request wouldn't of been accepted. Learn to dsicuss your issues with articles and if several editors keep reverting it as was the case here then its clear there is a problem with your edit and you should discuss it. Though i do see you have a history of edit-warring. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, enough talking crap and lets get back on track. In order to start the rewrite first we need to agree on what caubeen to write about. I believe it should stick to the military bonnet type caubeen rather than civvy hats called caubeens.--MFIreland • ^Talk 19:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In regards to "what caubeen". This article is about the caubeen, not what kind of caubeen. There is no need for a seperate military caubeen or civilian caubeen articles. This article can easily detail both uses as they aren't that extensive. The above section is that i've focused on at the moment and we can deal with it as "Civilian usage" as opposed to "Other uses". (AOH and Mad4Hats).

So this means the article could go like this:

• The introduction detailing briefly its usage by both military and civilian.
• Its origin.
• Its military use.
• Its civilian use.
• Its similarities with other similar hats such as the Glengarry etc.

What do you think? Though we still need the other involved parties to discuss as well as they had issues with your changes too. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is anyone can manufacture a hat of any kind they want and call it a caubeen just like Mad4Hats has done. Keep the main part of the article about the military bonnet type caubeen with a section for other hats with the same name. Have one section for users, both military and civvy. Any similarities would be mentioned in the intro with wiki links to there own articles, so there is no need for a section that would be just repeating part of the intro.--MFIreland • ^Talk 20:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if they call it a caubeen then who can argue? Is there a law on what or who can make a caubeen? I can agree about mentioning the similarity with other hats in the intro, especially if there isn't much documented about the differences between them. The main part of the article will be about military usage anyways as thats what we have most sourced information for.

Though i must contest this statement: "there is no need for a section that would be just repeating part of the intro". The intro is meant to be an introduction to the subject and summarise the contents of the article. Information in the intro can be repeated in the article if needs be - especially if its expanded upon.

Out of curiousity how should we classify the United Irishmen statement? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Which United Irishmen statement?--MFIreland • ^Talk 22:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This statement, the 3rd paragraph of the introduction:

It is mentioned in the The Wearing of the Green[7], an Irish street ballad dating to 1798. The context of the song is the repression around the time of the Irish Rebellion of 1798. Wearing a shamrock in the "caubeen" (hat) was a sign of rebellion and green was the colour of the Society of the United Irishmen, a republican revolutionary organisation.

They started off as civilian and ended up militant. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The song is more about the 19th century ban on wearing the shamrock. If the United Irishmen did wear a hat called a caubeen it would be mentioned in the many books on the organisations histroy and the 1798 Rebellion.--MFIreland • ^Talk 16:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:DUCK applies here, it is blatantly obvious from even the quickest search around the internet let alone the press that the Caubeen is used by civilians as a sign of Irishness in addition to its British military use. Look at the AOH, NYFD St Patrick’s day uniform controversy etc. MFIreland seems to have a POV that it is a British Army invention, but it even comes up in James Joyce's Ulysses (novel) for goodness sake. Chud05 (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added a link to an annoted version of Ulysses below:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fE9mkomQHEQC&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=james+joyce+ulysses+caubeen&source=bl&ots=HIKHLur4vy&sig=H5MWprYHwiU1WQjSWSJJFXjYx2M&hl=en&ei=JcE5Tdu_BoywhQfmk4nzCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chud05 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote from the book 'Ulysses annotated: notes for James Joyce's Ulysses', caubeen - anglicized Irish: "an old, shabby cap or hat." As I said before the Irish language word "cáibín", anglicised as caubeen has been used in Ireland to refer to a hat of any kind in a similar way to the Irish word "geansaí" has been used to refer to any kind of sweater, jumper, jersey, shirt etc.--MFIreland • ^Talk 17:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet again MFIreland is cherry picking to suit his own POV. From the same source makes it quite clear that this costume was patterned on that of the 'Stage Irishman' (page 486). He is frankly being disingenuous and is arguing about the existence of trees when the forest is obvious to all.

For other references to literary and dramatic use of the caubeen long before the Crown Forces appropriated the design see you can look up various articles for instance The Immigrant Theme on the American Stage and various article in the New Hibernia Review if you have access to a decent university library.

I find it regrettable that one editor can be continue to push such an obviously skewed POV. The claim that the Caubeen is British or that Crown Forces somehow have excusive rights to its use is quite frankly laughable. Chud05 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

From the same source makes it quite clear that this costume was patterned on that of the 'Stage Irishman' What's that supposed to mean? A 'stage Irishman' is a term used for a fake stereotype of an Irish person used in plays, films, TV, literature etc, including the fictional character Leopold Bloom in James Joyce's book Ulysses. Here's a hand drawing of Leopold Bloom by James Joyce, note the hat.--MFIreland • ^Talk 16:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Play nice everybody :-)

MFIreland the caubeen is mentioned none-the-less in the song and its clear it is not a British army thing alone. You need to provide evidence that the caubeen as we know it is a British army invention. Even then all these other references to the caubeen are permittable and have right of place if sourced. The only arguements that they aren't permittable is original research at the moment. The United Irishmen song quote also has a right for inclusion as it is still stated in the song no matter whether or not it was worn by many or not or whatever it meant. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Intro

A suggestion for the intro based on the above discussion.

A Caubeen is a name used for various hats, the most common is the military bonnet type caubeen worn by British and Commonwealth armys. The name caubeen may have come from the anglicised Irish term "cáibín" literally meaning "old hat" or the French word "corbeau" referring to the dark green colours of the military bonnet. The military bonnet type caubeen is very similar to the military Tam o' Shanter bonnet but with out a toorie.

--MFIreland • ^Talk 12:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have sources that clearly state that the caubeen is a name of various hats of which a certain type is the most common? We can't add original research or synthesis into any article. Also a source is needed for the similarity to the Tam O'Shanter. Without sources then it can't be added as it can't be verified. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a slight rewording of the introduction and the expanding of the name bit into its own section based on the sources provided trying to avoid as best is possible any syntesis or original research. The Oxford source clearly states its a beret and looking up the definition of a beret, it is not solely or originally a military hat even though we'd think of it as one.

The caubeen (/kɔːˈbiːn/) is an Irish beret. It was formerly worn by peasents, however has since been adopted as the head dress of the Irish regiments of the British and Commonwealth armies, where its formal name is the "Bonnet, Irish, Green".

Name

The name caubeen dates from early 19th century Irish and literally means "old hat". It is derived from the Irish word cáibín meaning "little cape", which itself is a diminutive form of cába meaning "cape". According to the Regimental Catechism of The Irish Regiment of Canada, it is suggested that the name caubeen may have been derived from the French word "corbeau" refering to the dark green colours of the bonnet. This name was given to it by the French, for whom many Irish soldiers fought as mercenaries over the centuries. Though it is also stated in the Regimental Catechism that it is "more likely" derived from the Irish word "caipin" (sic: cáibín) meaning "old hat".

Mabuska ^(talk) 13:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

From the newest Concise Oxford English Dictionary: Luxury Edition, 11th edition, revised 2009

caubeen

noun Irish a hat or beret.

Origin

C19: Ir., lit. 'old hat', from caibin 'little cape', dimin. of caba 'cape'. --MFIreland • ^Talk 16:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the online version of the Oxford dictionary just states beret as of 2010. Anyways i've altered what i have wrote above, truncating some of the intro and expanding on the actual origin on the name caubeen. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added stuff to the test version of the new article. What do you think? Its all sourced and written better than present article. If it suits all that is needed is to rewrite the military bit. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that, due to other commitments, I haven't been able to take part in the discussion. Firstly, I agree with the sentiments of user Chud05 above, in particular "I find it regrettable that one editor can be continue to push such an obviously skewed POV". The caubeen was and is an Irish hat, and has been known as that for several hundred years. It has been mentioned dozens of times in novels, short stories, songs and newspaper articles from the end of the 18th century. It has always been distinctively Irish - there was never a British or English caubeen, and the name comes from the Irish language. I can provide at least a dozen references for this. After the visit of George IV to Ireland in 1821 it was often regarded by English journalists as the headgear of a peasant who dressed in an old-fashioned style. The intro should reflect the origins and history of this headgear, and start with its historical origins, in Ireland, and then its linguistic meaning. That's only logical. Somewhere after that can come the adoptation of the NAME, by the British, for a DIFFERENT kind of headgear, military, of which MFIreland is so enamoured, and so fond of repeating, ad nauseam, but which I think we are by now pretty fed up with. Hohenloh ⁺ 00:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In 1938 there was an altercation in the Dáil, when Sean Lemass announced that tax on imported ladies' hats would be raised, in order to protect Irish hat producers. Deputy Dillon from the opposition complained that Irish ladies would be forced to wear Connacht caubeens. A ladies' hat factory in Galway took offence at that and announced that on Deputy Dillon's next visit to the city he would be presented with a suitable "Galway caubeen". Irish Times, 7 April 1938, p. 8. Hohenloh ⁺ 01:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if you have other sources mentioning the caubeen then please add them into here, where we are doing a rewrite. The more sourced information the better. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Mabuska ^(talk) 14:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Changed=

Well seeing the lack of fresh contributions here i've decided to add what has been reworded already into the article. As its fully sourced and worded better none of it can be argued against and there are no need for citation tags for any of it. The military section still needs done however and i will work on it when i get around to it. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://iroc.no-ip.org/Project_info/Irish_FAQ/FAQ.pdf

  Triggered by \bno-ip\. on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caubeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928072534/http://www.londonirishrifles.com/caubeen.cfm to http://www.londonirishrifles.com/caubeen.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100927042634/http://www.hibernians.us/divisionone.htm to http://www.hibernians.us/divisionone.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)