Talk:Old Guard (Australia)

Improvements

How to improve this article:

• "The group was primarily concerned with the social conditions arising from the Great Depression and the New South Wales government led by Jack Lang.[5]"

What aspect of "the social conditions"? Should this say "Concerned with improving the social conditions"?

Are the social conditions "arising from the NSW Government (with a capital letter) led by Jack Lang" or re these two different concerns? If they are two concerns, then a comma is needed.

• In response to rumours of fire-starting by agitators the Old Guard was a driving force behind the development of country bush fire brigades in New South Wales.[4]

Construct the sentence better. "Fire-starting by agitators" is really clumsy journalistic shorthand. Since no-one here counts column inches, you can make a full statement such as "In response to rumours that agitators from the Old Guard had started bush fires...." or something of that sort.

• Put your sections in a different order. It is fairly obvious that Members goes before Split. Secrecy doesn't require a section; it belongs under Members. Don't create a Major Heading, unless it marks a major topic in the article.
• The group was sworn to absolute secrecy regarding membership, its division into cells so that its leaders were obscured and the destruction of its own records.

Not a sentence.

• The New Guard split from the group in 1931.[1] Eric Campbell wanted a more visible organisation than the secretive Old Guard.[6]

No idea who Eric Campbell is! If you are going to mention an individual, then give him a context! "Eric Campbell, who had been a member of the Old Guard since..., wanted a more...." or something like that.

• The New Guard was less of a military force compared to the Old Guard which opposed the split because it was fearful of communists exploiting the division.[3]

These two statements are not linked to each other. The first statement is directly linked to the notion of "a more visible organisation". Re-order the different parts of the two sentences.

• Old Guard leaders were Protestant, wealthy Anglo-Australians.[2] Membership in rural New South Wales and ties to the New South Wales police force were strong.[2]

This seems like a direct contradiction.

Once again, the two ideas are incorrectly linked. Membership in rural New South Wales is linked to Protestant, wealthy Anglo-Australians, i.e. old families with land. The New South Wales Police Force has little or no direct connection.

If you are going to introduce something as contradictory as Protestant, wealthy Anglo-Australians and the predominantly Irish Catholic working-class New South Wales Police Force, then some analysis or explanation is called for..

• No general reader will have a clue who George Wooten is. Give him more context. Don't just throw in one notable name; you can afford to give a few more examples. Amandajm (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The social conditions were mass unemployment and dissatisfaction with economy. These are generally understand to be the effects of the Great Depression, however more detail could be provided. I was taught not place a comma before and. If that is important to you, by all means change it. I am comfortable with the fire-starting sentence. It seems clear to me. The sections could be better ordered, however secrecy was a major feature of the group. If you want more information about Eric Campbell or George Wooten, click the link. Again, more details can be provided as the article expands. It is just two days old and rated as start. I haven't worked on military articles or achieved good article status. I would encourage you to contribute to the article. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

....and I would encourage you to take a few hints from an extremely experienced editor. Icould fix your article for you, but that would achieve nothing, in the end, except the improvement of one rather minor article. However, if you were to take on board the comments that I have made, you would know considerable more about effective article writing.

Yes, in general commas are not used before "and", except when the meaning requires that one should do so.

Yes, one can click to find out information on the people you have mentioned, but one ought not to have to search, in order to discover why you have bothered to mention those names and not others. If the individual is relevant to this article, then their context to the article should be stated. Otherwise they are not sufficiently relevant to be mentioned at all. This is an encyclopedia we are constructing, not a paper-chase or a guessing game.

Amandajm (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

US National Guard

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. I'll fix the offending sentence once I complete the book. 60.242.50.195 (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

References