Talk:Tommy Atkins

Military history: British / European / World War I

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

I'm currently waiting on permission to use the image located at http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/misc/woodville1.html Mintguy (T) 03:33, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the poems and song be at wikisource? Lisiate 01:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any reason why they shouldn't be here aswell? - Is it not encyclopaedic to have them in reference to the rest of the article? Jooler 14:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[Belated] Well, they do make the article a long scrolldown, but I guess that's a question of aesthetics. Lee M 19:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Can the theories on the term's origin cite their sources, and provide explicit and linked references please? Sliggy 00:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The urban myths can't. The other origins except the letter from Jamaica are cited - Jooler 09:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See http://collections.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.1262, which uses How the regiments got their nicknames by Tim Carew; illustrated by Nicolas Bentley. - London : Leo Cooper, 1974 as a source. Jooler 09:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry

Yeah, I've often wondered if there was some link. But other than the sheer attractiveness of the idea, is there any evidence this is true? Disney history or interviews? Otherwise it's just unfounded speculation, and should be phrased as such and moved further down, or deleted. JackyR 17:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is just my speculation - I'm not sure I've been told it by anyone else. But it seems quite convincing to me! Please edit as you see fit. Ben Finn 12:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to try and verify this as either fact or fiction. Feel free to remove it though until I have some sort of decent answer either way. --Kickstart70·Talk 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page for Tom and Jerry has got some info from the maintainer of a Tom and Jerry website, and concluded there's no evidence for it. Daibhid C (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...But you know that, because you're the one who contacted him. (D'oh! It's been one of those days, sorry.) Daibhid C (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full text of poems

This article contains the full text of three poems (or, rather, two poems and a song) which I think ought not to be there. The guidelines tell us we shouldn't include copies of text like this, and since they are simply included without comment I think that there is no benefit to keeping them rather than copying them to wikisource and linking to them. I tried to do this with the Rudyard Kipling poem, but Jooler reverted my change. So, commentary will be appreciated: ought the poems to remain, or ought they to be linked to instead? --Sopoforic 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry and Red flag for a song quoted as part of a broader article about the subject of the article Jooler 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have noted on your talk page (repeatedly) and as Shimgray mentions, it is appropriate to quote the lyrics when the article is about the song itself and when the article also includes commentary, as is the case with Red flag. It is not appropriate, ever, to simply include a copy of the text without comment, as has been done in Tommy Atkins. Several different people have removed those poems, and you continue to revert the changes without justifying why it is helpful to have them in the article, or explaining why it doesn't violate the injunction against including copies of primary sources. --Sopoforic 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I read the "you should..." in that guideline as "you should quote from", not "you should include wholesale". (One day, I will get around to writing an article on Tommy itself - there's certainly material to work on - but I feel I ought to note that Danny Deever manages quite fine with one verse and a link to wikisource) Shimgray | talk | 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources is generally a pretty sensible guideline. There is reason for including the full text in articles on the work itself, but in this case the poems aren't the fundamental purpose of the article and they just seem to pad it out pointlessly. I concur entirely and have cut them - I'm sure I did this once before, back when it was just Kipling. Shimgray | talk | 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the talk page of that guideline - there is a large amount of opposition to it and I am also in that camp. Jooler 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opposition seems to date heavily from 2003/4. There's very little noticeable recent objection to it, and the guideline as stated certainly seems in line with common practice as I've seen it. Shimgray | talk | 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there was opposition--four years ago, before wikisource was created. Strangely enough, there was no more opposition after that. --Sopoforic 00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource is not for out of copyright poems and songs. It is for long works and the texts of treaties and other official documents. Jooler 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, wikisource is specifically for out of copyright poems and songs as well as treaties etc. It says so right on Wikisource:What is Wikisource?. --Sopoforic 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked Jooler for reasons why the poems should be kept, and he responded (on my talk page): "I have already explained. I see no reason beyond bureaucracy (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy) not to include them. Jooler 00:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

One reason to remove it (besides that the guidelines suggest that it should be removed, which is a pretty good reason absent any argument for keeping it) is that it unnecessarily lengthens the page; we like to keep the pages brief, where possible, which is one reason we split up large articles. In this case there's nothing to split: there is only the text of the poems, which is better linked to. --Sopoforic 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's iffy editorial style, if you ask me. It pads out the centre of the page with only tangentially related text, which the reader has to wade through to see if there's any other content, and it maes the article seem substantially more like a collection of random bits and less like a coherent whole. There is a time and place for inclusion of primary sources, but where those primary sources are "some poems about the topic" rather than "the work under discussion", this doesn't seem to be it. Shimgray | talk | 00:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put all three on Wikisource; if there isn't any more support for keeping them here by tomorrow, I'll remove the full text ones again. Shimgray | talk | 00:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and nothing. Okay, out they go pending a really good reason. Shimgray | talk | 09:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jammy Sailor

There was a Thomas Atkins who was the sole survivor from the Mary in the Great Storm. He was washed on board the Stirling Castle which then sank and again he was one of only a handful of survivors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Storm_of_1703 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.35.103 (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica quote

The quote from Jamaica in 1743 is important, but we need a source. It suggests that this was a generic term all along, not a specific person, although this is not necessarily inconsistent with the idea that its currency may have been increased by its use in official forms in the early 19th century. However one thing that concerns me slightly about this quote is the archaic "ye", would this have been used as late as 1743? PatGallacher (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I included the cite everyone seems to be unconsciously repeating, doubt it can be tracked down much further even with back copies of Soldier. As for ye, it is perfectly plausible to have been in a letter from that era as it remains (rarely) in affectionate usage to this day. meltBanana 17:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, your alleged "affectionate ye" concerns the meaning "you" while the 1743 letter quite clearly uses ye in the archaic sense of "the" so I'm not sure how you connect the two. --- For that matter, I'm very sceptical about the (unsourced) reference about the name Atkins apparently being chosen as a connection to the soldiers' "red tunics", since that seems to require a knowledge of Hebrew and the etymology of the name Adam. Idontcareanymore (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tommie

--cut here-- The name "Tommy" for the British soldier was most likely to have been in the wars of the eighteenth century the Prussian/German soldiers were our allies and on a Tuesday and Thursday regularly, the commissariat would issue a dark bread as part of the rations with the nickname "tommie". The cooks would bang pots and pans and call the surrounding troops to "collect" their ration. It wasn't an option! They would call out over the camp "Tommie, come and get your tommie". The bread was a form of black bread, heavy and solid and hard to eat unless moistened, but lasted well on marches and in the field. It also had many good grains and cereals in the making although the soldiers still all hated it. The grumbles and calls were heard by other troops, not British, but our German allies, and so the term was used in a slightly derogatory way to gently or deliberately "annoy" the soldiers when mixing in camps and on leave. So the term was used in the 1760's and was generic by the Napoleonic wars in 1800-1815. Tommy "the bread" was not something that continued in the British Army as part of its weekly rations and so by the time of the "First World War, the Germans had presumably remembered the term and used it more effectively then and now the term has been corrupted by our common belief it was because of the English common usage of "Tommie" or "Tommy" for a persons name. (This information was of the bread was taken from an eighteenth century military account. The information about rations should be checkable in the Army archives in the British War museum). The use of the word "tommie" cannot be ignored as to the true derivation of the word "Tommy" as the appellation for the British soldier. --cut here-- Removed this until it is properly cited, and has had tone issues fixed. Also needs checking for copy-vio. Rich Farmbrough, 11:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Urban myths

Just been adding to the 'Private Tommy Atkins' music paragraph and two assertions following have irked me:

1)"It is also said that the name "Tommy Atkins" was the example name on conscription sheets during the First World War, and that teenagers who were underage often signed up as "Tommy Atkins".[citation needed]" 2) "Today's soldier is nicknamed (within the Army) "Tom", and the British Army magazine Soldier features a cartoon strip character called Tom.[citation needed]"

1) I've looked at many army forms from WW1 and never seen Tommy Atkins used as a placeholder. Likewise underage volunteers were hardly likely to use such an obvious name if they wanted to slip under the radar. So, urban myths both methinks. If citations can be found (and of course I have looked) then the info can go back in - sourced - but until then... 2) The first statement is much better explained in the introduction, and, as it stands, is just common knowledge. And I have found no evidence for the 'Soldier' cartoon strip (other sites just quote Wiki and a potential urban myth is formed. So unless a citation can be found, I think I will be bold! Colin aka Henri Merton 11:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial service

The article states that a memorial service will be held on the death of "the last veteran" of the First World War. Will the service be held now that Claude Choules has died or has it already been held? Was this the service mentioned in the article? Björn Knutson (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of a soldier with a doll

The picture of a soldier with a doll reminds me of a newspaper or television report some years ago of an elderly widow who had to move to a nursing home and wanted to make sure that when she passed away her doll would be properly conserved.

She had, as a young wife, received the doll, a beautiful high-quality work of art type doll, as a gift from her husband who had bought it in France or Belgium on his way home at either the end of The Great War or when coming home on leave during The Great War.

Her wishes had been observed and her doll was found a permanent place to be treasured in a museum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.208.159 (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Shelby

I have deleted this paragraph as irrelevant:

More recently, the 2013–present BBC television show Peaky Blinders centers on the return of a British tunneler from the Great War in France named Tommy Shelby.

Or should we list here every mention of a WW1 British soldier named Tommy?</irony> --Thnidu (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecific Solidified Alcohol

In the second-to-last sentence in "In Popular Culture", the fuel for a Tommy Cooker is referred to as "...something referred to as solidified alcohol" - wouldn't language such as "known as" or even entirely removing the "something referred to as" be more appropriate? PiddleAndTwiddle (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]