Talk:Adelaide Universities Regiment

Pipes and Drums Band

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)

Rubbish - how is it neutral? It only shows one side of the story. "The band members were disaffected". Where is the explanation of why they were refused attendance for instance? No doubt there was a reason. This just looks like a WP:POV addition with an agenda to me. Even if it was neutral I fail to see how a single soldier being charged for insubordination (rightly or wrongly) is a notable enough event in the life of a unit which should be covered in this encyclopaedia unless it received "significant coverage" in WP:RS (and this one didn't and never will because it is trivial). Such charges occur on a routine basis. As such it is a minor episode that is covered in far too much detail. You reinserting the information after you were reverted is a breach of WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss) and could be seen as disruptive. "Happy to discuss improvements" - no evidence of that. You just want a soapbox. What is your connection with this event? Because at the moment I believe you probably have conflict of interest. Anotherclown (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

G'day AC and 60. I agree with AC on this one regarding BRD: once AC reverted, 60 should not have reinserted the information until consensus was established on the talk page. Essentially doing so is edit warring. Regarding the information itself, I'm happy to discuss working something of the proposed text into the original, but not in its full form as I also believe it would breach WP:UNDUE. Consider this, the regiment has been around since the late 40s. I'm almost certain there have been many soldiers charged in that time for some reason or another, so how would this be different? Why should this get more coverage than any other incident? Potentially because it made the media...maybe, but then these days lots of things that are relatively minor make the media. To resolve this, my suggestion is that 60 self revert and then discuss in a manner designed to establish consensus. That would demonstrate good faith in my view and then allow us to move forward. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITH should apply in this instance. While, I'm sure there is a rule about arguing based on rules on wikipedia, I have read WP:BRD and it clearly states that BRD means: be bold in editing, revert if it is not an improvement, and if it can not be fixed by improvement, discuss on the talk page.Anotherclown, you could have improved this edit instead of simply reverting. BRD is not a blanket license to revert something you do not agree with.

• Regarding the allegation of conflict of interest, I am in the pipe band community and was aware of these events at the time, and that is my motivation for this edit. My understanding of the events was hearsay and is quite fuzzy after 10 years, so I searched for articles on the internet and tried to create an unbiased article based on that. Conflict of interest makes it clear that: Conflict of interest is not simply bias. Rather that using Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers. It is a stretch that my loose connections to these events, which were resolved a decade ago constitute a conflict of interest.
• Regarding the significance of these events, the ultimate test is whether this adds to the article. I think it does. It materially explains the demise of the band. AUR pipes and drums were a significant part of the pipe band community in South Australia, and I understand, a significant part of the unit. The circumstances relating to the demise involved a rather public dispute and I think this deserves a mention in a few lines. More would be excessive. Generally, a charge would be completely un-noteworthy. But I think in this instance, the very brief reference to the charge of the pipe major is directly relevant to the reported dissatisfaction of band members, and thus to the disbandment.
• The edits are properly referenced. Any person wanting to understand more is able to read those references and get further details.
• I have edited to make the article to make it more neutral. I ask that you read the references and make constructive edits or good faith suggestions to improve the current version, particularly with respect to WP:NPOV.60.242.96.252 (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The current level of coverage of the band is now sufficient in my opinion (following the changes since the original material was inserted) and I do not support the addition of information about the "public dispute" that apparently (according to hearsay as you admit) led to its demise. It is at best trivia and at worst advocacy. Ultimately the "sources" provided mostly only discuss the event from one side, while it is a non-notable event at any rate given that it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources (two articles 11 years ago is not significant coverage). I note that neither source provided (both dated 2003) supports the claim that the band was disbanded (in 2010) as a result of the dispute either (events which occurred 7 years apart). One assumes it had more to do with ongoing force structure changes occurring in 2 DIV and the general contraction of the Reserve that has been occurring for some time now, although poor attendence may well have expedited its occurrence (as with many Reserve units nation-wide). Ultimately this seems like speculation on your part. I stand by my concern that adding this material is WP:UNDUE. Ref your discussion of BRD - clearly I reverted because I didn't believe it was an improvement and felt the material should not be included at all hence I reverted (how else could I fix something I didn't feel should be included?). Anotherclown (talk) 04:31, 25 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)

The Stateline article quotes the opinion of a person close to the band, however it contains other factual details. The facts of the matter that we can glean from the references are reference 3 is new:

• The band was invited to the 2003 tattoo and the Army denied this request on the grounds of cost and risk.
• There was an ongoing dispute that was played out in public. (As evidenced by the involvement of the State Premier, and Leader of the opposition and the media interest. Also the Stateline article describes "'a long-running battle between the Army and members of the band'" and calls this a furore: an outbreak of public anger or excitement)
• The band members then attended the tattoo as a civilian band.
• The Army subsequently launched an investigation into the band.
• The Pipe Major was involved in an incident where he was insubordinate to the Commanding Officer. He was charged and demoted over this incident.
• In the opinion of the former drum major, the members of the band were disaffected and were ready to walk out. This is a person's opinion. However, there is a difference between the opinion of an author of an article, and the opinion of a person reported in a reliable source. I think it is reasonable to assume that this man was generally representative of the truth. Otherwise it could be worded appropriately.
• It is my personal knowledge that many of the members left after this incident and that the band was virtually non-existent from that point. On reading the rules further I'm happy to concede that this isn't allowed. But the band was really prominent part of Adelaide once upon a time, and then it vanished. The circumstances surrounding this are definitely worthy of inclusion.

The three core content policies are important here: Neutral point of view, No original research and Verifiability. These dot points are all neutral in tone and use non-judgmental language, they don't give significant undue weighting to one view or another, they do not contain original research, and they are verifiable from reputable sources (Stateline is an Australian Broadcasting Corporation current affairs program and is reputable). As long as this is the case, these points do not violate the core content policies. Do you agree?

I think we need to agree on how WP:UNDUE applies. It states: 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. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

• It specifically relates to weighting views on an issue. (The pipes and drums are a sub issue in the page)
• It relates to weighting the views relative to their weighting in the sources. (The sources are actually heavily biased towards the band, but I agree common sense to ignore as much of the hyperbole as possible and only present facts).
• It means minority views (e.g. Flat Earthism) should not be given equal weighting to majority views. (This issue doesn't have minority views on a flat earth/round earth scale.)
• It relates to not giving undue weighting to minor issues in a page. To write half of the page about this issue would be excessive. As long as the mention is brief, that will suffice.

On notability it is specifically a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. It is not a test of whether information should be included in a given article.

On WP:BRD, AC you might have assumed that the edit was vandalism, but now you need to assume good faith and follow Wikipedia's rules and try to reach consensus.60.242.96.252 (talk) 10:47, 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)

G'day 60, regarding the proposed content, please also be aware that as the information you are wishing to add relates to identifiable living people we have to be careful about how it is reported. Even though people aren't being mentioned by name, by nature of their position they are idenfitiable. That is why my proposed wording does not mention appointments etc an is light on detail. Regarding UNDUE, my interpretation of it extends from the definition above to how the addition interacts with the rest of the content in the article. A couple of short sentences in an article this size seems reasonable. Whole paragraphs do not. Anything more than a sentence or two would be too much in my opinion, particularly as the sourcing seems limited to a couple of newspaper articles from 2003. Hence it probably not notable as AC states as there doesn't appear to be any lasting coverage. So having said that, I support AC's rewording of my suggestion (noting that I would be equally in favour of not including anything about this). Do you have a counter proposal in terms of wording? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608173516/http://www.army.gov.au/AUR/Welcome.asp to http://www.army.gov.au/AUR/Welcome.asp

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).

• 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) 05:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Rifle green hackle

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)

G'day, as the information is cited to a reliable source, you will need to provide another such source for your information. It can then be contrasted in the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)