This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Adelaide Universities Regiment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Anotherclown Undid revision 630911838 by 60.242.96.252 giving the reason: not sure that level of detail is required in an encyclopaedia, rv per undue weight.
WP:UNDUE states that Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
In this case the edit was factual, neutral representation of events played out in public as presented by reliable published sources. I don't see how this issue is in any way controversial, in the sense that or that it presents a point of view that can be given undue weight. Moreover WP:UNDUE does not relate to level of detail in general. Since the events were reported in international media at the time, and materially relates to the disbanding of the band, it is worthy of inclusion in an article.
Happy to discuss improvements, but an outright revert is simply unwarranted. 60.242.96.252 ( talk) 12:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
G'day. Firstly, let's examine the references. One of them is a transcript of the radio program interviewing one of the Drum Major's friends...so I'm not sure we can really say that is completely neutral. That said, if we were careful with how we used the reference it might be ok to use so long as we avoid using the opinion in it. The other one, from a Scottish newspaper, is potentially more neutral, although it suffers from some issues surrounding hyperbole. Again, it could protentially be used if we were careful with only using it to report facts rather than matters of interpretation. So, considering that, let's discuss what we could possibly add using these sources... Frankly, I'm not sure that we could add very much. I do not support the addition of large chunks of detail about the matter as it represents a very small part of the unit's history, which would overshadow other parts and as such would breach WP:UNDUE as Anotherclown states. I also think it is a long bow to draw to say that the 2003 incident directly caused the 2010 disbandment, particularly as neither of the references provided so far state this (both being from late 2003), and as such I do not support stating this link in the article (as it would be original research). Thus, at best, we could probably add a short sentence or two if anything at all. My proposal would be: "The band attended the 1992 Edinburgh Military Tattoo and was invited to perform again in 2003 but this was not approved by the unit. An internal dispute between band members and unit hierarchy followed, which later received some attention in the media in Australia and Scotland.[Stateline ref][Scotsman Newspaper Ref]" That seems pretty neutral to me, but equally it seems pretty unnecessary and probably also breaches WP:UNDUE. Nevertheless, I propose it in the interests of finding a compromise. Thoughts? AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
No - I reverted because 1) I felt it was UNDUE weight to cover this matter in detail, 2) the sources you provided didn't state what you said they did (2003 sources used to reference something which happened in 2010) and 3) it was not neutral as it only covered one side of the story. You reinserting the information AFTER I reverted was what I stated breached BRD and was disruptive. I never once said your edits were vandalism. There is a big difference.
All of that aside the additional reference you have provided is also from 2003 so we are still left with speculation that dissatisfaction over this event lead to the band being removed from the ORBAT in 2010, and on that I am highly dubious. IMO even including this dissatisfaction in the same paragraph as the disbandment runs the risk of misleading the reader into assuming a causal link where none is proven to exist. Until you can provide a reliable source which states there was a link it should not be included.
I would be supportive of ARs proposed wording above being inserted with a few changes. My proposed wording is as follows: "The band attended the 1992 Edinburgh Military Tattoo and was invited to perform again in 2003 but this was not approved by the unit due to cost and security concerns. The band subsequently attended the event in a civilian capacity and an internal dispute between some band members and the unit hierarchy followed, which later received attention in the media in Australia and Scotland.[refs]" Anotherclown ( talk) 22:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adelaide Universities Regiment. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
AUR does not and has never worn a rifle green hackle behind its cap badge. This is an erroneous reference to the rifle green patch worn behind the cap badge as a visual display of the link to the Royal Irish Regiment. Up until the 1990s there was no patch behind the cap badge. The AUR Pipes and Drums wore a diamond shape piece of saffron kilt material behind their cap badge when in highland attire. This was in deference to the Royal Irish Rangers, the sister regiment in the UK at the time. The only hackle to have ever been worn by AUR was yet again the Pipes and Drums, in this instance a red hackle on a balmoral until 1992 and then on a plain glengarry. No hackle has ever been worn on berets or slouch hats (hat KFF). 58.175.177.236 ( talk) 12:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Adelaide Universities Regiment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Anotherclown Undid revision 630911838 by 60.242.96.252 giving the reason: not sure that level of detail is required in an encyclopaedia, rv per undue weight.
WP:UNDUE states that Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
In this case the edit was factual, neutral representation of events played out in public as presented by reliable published sources. I don't see how this issue is in any way controversial, in the sense that or that it presents a point of view that can be given undue weight. Moreover WP:UNDUE does not relate to level of detail in general. Since the events were reported in international media at the time, and materially relates to the disbanding of the band, it is worthy of inclusion in an article.
Happy to discuss improvements, but an outright revert is simply unwarranted. 60.242.96.252 ( talk) 12:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
G'day. Firstly, let's examine the references. One of them is a transcript of the radio program interviewing one of the Drum Major's friends...so I'm not sure we can really say that is completely neutral. That said, if we were careful with how we used the reference it might be ok to use so long as we avoid using the opinion in it. The other one, from a Scottish newspaper, is potentially more neutral, although it suffers from some issues surrounding hyperbole. Again, it could protentially be used if we were careful with only using it to report facts rather than matters of interpretation. So, considering that, let's discuss what we could possibly add using these sources... Frankly, I'm not sure that we could add very much. I do not support the addition of large chunks of detail about the matter as it represents a very small part of the unit's history, which would overshadow other parts and as such would breach WP:UNDUE as Anotherclown states. I also think it is a long bow to draw to say that the 2003 incident directly caused the 2010 disbandment, particularly as neither of the references provided so far state this (both being from late 2003), and as such I do not support stating this link in the article (as it would be original research). Thus, at best, we could probably add a short sentence or two if anything at all. My proposal would be: "The band attended the 1992 Edinburgh Military Tattoo and was invited to perform again in 2003 but this was not approved by the unit. An internal dispute between band members and unit hierarchy followed, which later received some attention in the media in Australia and Scotland.[Stateline ref][Scotsman Newspaper Ref]" That seems pretty neutral to me, but equally it seems pretty unnecessary and probably also breaches WP:UNDUE. Nevertheless, I propose it in the interests of finding a compromise. Thoughts? AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
No - I reverted because 1) I felt it was UNDUE weight to cover this matter in detail, 2) the sources you provided didn't state what you said they did (2003 sources used to reference something which happened in 2010) and 3) it was not neutral as it only covered one side of the story. You reinserting the information AFTER I reverted was what I stated breached BRD and was disruptive. I never once said your edits were vandalism. There is a big difference.
All of that aside the additional reference you have provided is also from 2003 so we are still left with speculation that dissatisfaction over this event lead to the band being removed from the ORBAT in 2010, and on that I am highly dubious. IMO even including this dissatisfaction in the same paragraph as the disbandment runs the risk of misleading the reader into assuming a causal link where none is proven to exist. Until you can provide a reliable source which states there was a link it should not be included.
I would be supportive of ARs proposed wording above being inserted with a few changes. My proposed wording is as follows: "The band attended the 1992 Edinburgh Military Tattoo and was invited to perform again in 2003 but this was not approved by the unit due to cost and security concerns. The band subsequently attended the event in a civilian capacity and an internal dispute between some band members and the unit hierarchy followed, which later received attention in the media in Australia and Scotland.[refs]" Anotherclown ( talk) 22:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adelaide Universities Regiment. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
AUR does not and has never worn a rifle green hackle behind its cap badge. This is an erroneous reference to the rifle green patch worn behind the cap badge as a visual display of the link to the Royal Irish Regiment. Up until the 1990s there was no patch behind the cap badge. The AUR Pipes and Drums wore a diamond shape piece of saffron kilt material behind their cap badge when in highland attire. This was in deference to the Royal Irish Rangers, the sister regiment in the UK at the time. The only hackle to have ever been worn by AUR was yet again the Pipes and Drums, in this instance a red hackle on a balmoral until 1992 and then on a plain glengarry. No hackle has ever been worn on berets or slouch hats (hat KFF). 58.175.177.236 ( talk) 12:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)