![]() | A fact from Old Guard (Australia) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 August 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
How to improve this article:
This statement is footnoted, but I find it difficult to believe that it's an accurate reporting of a legitimate source: "It [the Old Guard] has been described as a paramilitary, quasi-official, vigilante, counterrevolutionary, anti-communist organisation. The Old Guard had a similar purpose and was composed simarly to the National Guard of the United States.[3]" I can believe that the Old Guard might be composed (if that means the same as organized or structured) similarly to the US National Guard. However, as a Yank, I consider it an insult to our National Guard (which is an official reserve force of the US Army) to say it's paramilitary, quasi-official or vigilante. So, I find it very difficult to accept the statement that the two organizations' "purpose" is the same. Gms3591 ( talk) 08:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
And you should be insulted. Currently reading Andrew Moore's The secret army and the Premier. He goes into the origins of the Old Guard and does a roll call of earlier groups of that type. He pays particular attention to the Australian Protective League, formed right at the end of the war, but closely modelled on the American Protective League. The Wikipedia entry is good. [1] I'll fix the offending sentence once I complete the book. 60.242.50.195 ( talk) 10:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
References
![]() | A fact from Old Guard (Australia) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 August 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
How to improve this article:
This statement is footnoted, but I find it difficult to believe that it's an accurate reporting of a legitimate source: "It [the Old Guard] has been described as a paramilitary, quasi-official, vigilante, counterrevolutionary, anti-communist organisation. The Old Guard had a similar purpose and was composed simarly to the National Guard of the United States.[3]" I can believe that the Old Guard might be composed (if that means the same as organized or structured) similarly to the US National Guard. However, as a Yank, I consider it an insult to our National Guard (which is an official reserve force of the US Army) to say it's paramilitary, quasi-official or vigilante. So, I find it very difficult to accept the statement that the two organizations' "purpose" is the same. Gms3591 ( talk) 08:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
And you should be insulted. Currently reading Andrew Moore's The secret army and the Premier. He goes into the origins of the Old Guard and does a roll call of earlier groups of that type. He pays particular attention to the Australian Protective League, formed right at the end of the war, but closely modelled on the American Protective League. The Wikipedia entry is good. [1] I'll fix the offending sentence once I complete the book. 60.242.50.195 ( talk) 10:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
References