From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Battle Group article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

hello chaps, just a quick comment about the "waltism" category which was added and then removed. I believe that Uk army "grunts" use the word "walts" to describe anyone who has an interest in millitary matters.

ie. those people are interested in guns they must be Walts.

you know, that sort of thing.

Hello Chaps, hopefully I am at the talk page. I have been attempting to add balance to the artical on the Second Battle Group, but am doing something wrong, as my corrections are being removed.

[edit] What am I doing wrong?

Thanks for the info, I will assemble the information and post it here in a few days

Steve Gurowski 08:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not a member of this group, but know a couple of people who are. A lot of new information has come to light in the past 3 weeks, and to give the artical balance, they need to be posted here.

What do I do now?

Cheers Steve Gurowski 02:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here. As you may know, there has been some edit warring over this article in the past so there is some sensitivity to sudden changes to it (even when those changes are in good faith or reflect new information).

If you have new information that should be added to the page, the best course of action would be to post it here on the talk page, ideally in the form you'd like to see it in the article, and leave it for a couple of days so others can comment. If there seems consensus for its inclusion then go right ahead and add it to the article itself.

One mild caution - if you want to make sure your proposed changes get included you will need to provide reliable sources. Information directly from the people you know in the SBG probably isn't going to be sufficient, as it would be seen as original research. Anything published in a newspaper or similar would more likely be fine. Euryalus 03:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The SBG publish a newsletter. You should be able to use this as a reliable source for statements from them. Unknown Unknowns 08:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BBC Documentary

Maybe the documentary needs its own page?

Yes, I'd agree that there's a "guilt by association" element, which was in the documentary. There seemed to be a progression of increasingly disturbing elements, which climaxed with the "hidden camera" revelations.

I think my original quoting of the BBC listing text, while it's tricky on copyright grounds ("Fair Use"?), was less unfair. As it is, the main SBG connection is the clash between their avowed apolitical stance and the opinions of some members. Including one who seemed to be involved in running the group.

Zhochaka 06:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to the covert filming but the rest of the documentary was like something produced by Goebbels. From what I understand the SBG were appearing at the War And Peace Show, along with dozens of other organizations. Perhaps this should have its own page? Unknown Unknowns 08:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Telegraph

There's been some wholesale reverting going on, with claims of libel. If members associated with the SBG or related entities have a specific complaint, they're best off contacting OTRS. I would note, however, that the allegedly libelous material comes straight from the Daily Telegraph and the BBC, and neither of these organizations has been formally accused of libel. If the BBC was to withdraw its documentary, or the Telegraph to retract its story, that would of course be a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the article for five days and invite the edit warriors to state their objections here. Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: "With regard to the Salute Show. The Jewish Chronicle were not at the event. The story was collated through various blogs and somewhere along the line the truth got a little muddled. Yes there were children dressed as Hitler Youth (in a German Home Front display), and yes there were mugs on sale with images that people may have found offensive, but the two never combined."

If the SBG have issued a statement to this effect then it should be included in the article when it's unprotected. Does anybody have a source for it, please? Unknown Unknowns 11:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

i have changed the page to its original state. could it PLEASE be left alone for a few days until the controvesy business is sorted out. the issues refered to are in the hands of the sbg legal team and the constant edit warring serves no purpose. If this page isnt left alone I shal ask the wikipedia team if it could be removed temporarily.

Dr doris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr doris (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The removal of this sourced material from the article presents some problems. On the one hand, where there are current and fast-moving issues it is a good idea to let the dust settle before adding it to Wikipedia articles. On the other hand some of the reports you would like to remove date back to April, which is hardly current.

Secondly, you state that there is some issue involving SBG's lawyers which will have some bearing on the content of this article. Unfortunately it does not appear that the SBG has issued a statement to this effect and in its absence we only have your word for it. Against that we have the statement that was issued by the SBG acknowledging the documentary coverage and condemning the allegedly racist comments. I'm not suggesting you're wrong (I have no way of knowing either way), just that in the absence of any sources it sounds a bit like original research and not a good reason to delete content from this page. I note that neither the Jewish Chronicle nor the BBC have retracted their reports.

Thirdly, as you no doubt know Wikipedia is not censored. The article as it stands reports the Jewish Chronicle and BBC coverage and includes a response from SBG to the latter. If this is not a full account of the issue the answer is not to remove the entire section but to add to it to present a better balance.

Lastly, if you still think this material should be removed for legal reasons you should certainly go ahead and contact Wikipedia. Details of how to do this are here.

On the basis of all this I have restored the material to the article. I agree with you about edit warring - if there is further disagreement let's discuss it here and reach a consensus with other editors. Euryalus 22:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)