Talk:Mark Donaldson

Source

• ABC report m.e. (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the photo be the updated version where he is actually wearing the VC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.200.69 (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Meritorious Unit Citation (Australia) no star.jpg

The image File:Meritorious Unit Citation (Australia) no star.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Unit Citation for Gallantry (Australia) star.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed PalawanOz (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation requests for honours and awards section

Can the photo I took of Donaldson's awards at the AWM (which has been included in this article since about March) serve as a de-facto citation for this section? - I can attest that the AWM has labeled them as being his (as part of the display and in press releases, etc) and they've been seen by tens if not hundreds of thousands of people by now. It seems a bit odd that we've got a photo of his medals but the table stating what they are is tagged as needing cites. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the information in the table as needing cites because—in what seems to be quite a common occurrence to me—many people engage in OR when it comes to medals in articles on Wikipedia, so I think it best to tag such sections when there is no cite present as I believe they really need to be there if these sections are to be present. Even though I trust you, Nick, and believe the photograph to be of Donaldson's medals, I do not think a photograph is sufficient to use as a reference; this could also be perceived to be OR as one is/could be relying on their own identification skills to decipher what the medals actually are. What I think is needed here is an actual, reliable, published source. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"I do not think a photograph is sufficient to use as a reference" - I sort of follow your reasoning, but I don't completely understand why you say this.

You say: "this could also be perceived to be OR as one is/could be relying on their own identification skills to decipher what the medals actually are." - Well yes, it could be. But on the other hand, it may not be.

Do you have a more concrete reason, or perhaps an example, to justify your opinion?

And also, for example, the results of horse races which involve many millions of dollars are decided by people "relying on their own identification skills to decipher what the" final positions "actually are". An "actual, reliable, published source" would not be acceptable.

I will be very interested to read your response. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I completely understand what you are asking, but WP:RS requests that "reliable, third-party, published sources" should be used to reference material; an image/photograph does not exactly fall under this guideline. I do not really understand the inclusion of the horse racing reference, as horse racing is based on probability, while the medals Donaldson holds should be facts; not based on likelihood. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The citation tags are an annoyance and not necessary as it is plainly correct to all who see the picture. Common sense should prevail here. Nasnema  Chat  01:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the question at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Medal_groups_-_Display_in_reputable_museums. PalawanOz (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm being very dim, the medals referred to under the header "Life of Service" on page 2 are those of Gregory Sher, not Donaldson. David Underdown (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say you are correct, David. If there are no objections, etc, I will remove the cite and re-add the cite needed tags within the next 24 hours. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added a citation using the Department of Defence's Official (Photographic) Portrait - this is a reliable published source. As far as I am concerned this is a sufficiently adequate reference to identify what he had been awarded at the time of the photograph. The fact that it is not text is irrelevant - medals and medal ribbons are a visual code, just as much as alphabets and written words are - the only difference is that less people learn the code. There are sufficiently numerous sources to facilitate visual recognition of Australian medals and arguments about relying upon ones identification skills are no more valid than saying that one relies on one's own identification skills to identify words on a page - this we take for granted. In this particular case, identification has been done by three editors from the WP Orders, Decorations and Medals Project ( PalawanOz, Pdfpdf and myself) - all of whom have a high degree of expertise in the Australian honours and awards system and recognising awards within it. Having said that, a photographic source has to be taken for what it is, in this case a visual snapshot of what he was wearing at the time the photograph was taken. However, one must also recognise what it is not. In this case the photograph does not, of itself, establish why he was awarded the various medals - hence why I have left the citation tag for the reason he has a UCG with Federation Star . Notwithstanding, it is quite clear that the information is accurate:

• He is wearing the UCG with Federation Star, information is readily available that the Federation Star is worn only by those who were a member of the relevant unit during the period for which it was awarded - therefore, assuming that he is not wearing it incorrectly, he served in a deployed unit during the time for which it received a UCG.
• There are only 3 units to have been awarded a UCG to date:

• D Coy 6 RAR for Long Tan - awarded after the photo for events before he was born, so its not this one;
• 1 SAS Sqn for service on Op FALCONER - this was before he joined the SASR, so it is not this one; and
• 4 RAR (Cdo) for service on SLIPPER - he was in the Special Forces community by this time so he could have been with the Task Group.

• So by process of elimination, it must be for serving in the deployment for which 4 RAR (Cdo) was awarded the UCG that entitles him to wear it with the Federation Star.

Equally, one can use the biographical information on the Defence website to deduce that he is entitled to the majority of the remaining displayed awards:

• He is acknowledged in his Australian Defence of Department website biography as having deployed for a tour with SOTG in Afghanistan and that he was in Afghanistan for at least the period 12 Aug - 02 Sep 08 (a period of 22 days).
• We know from the available information on Australian medals that this operation attracts:

• the award of the AASM with clasp ICAT for service of at least 1 day.
• the award of the Afghanistan Medal for service amounting to at least 30 days (days requirement waived if evacuated wounded).
• the award of the NATO Medal for the Non-Article 5 operation in Afghanistan for service amounting to at least 30 days.

• We therefore know that he is entitled to the AASM with clasp ICAT and we can safely assume that he will have spent at least 30 days in the eligible area as there will have necessarily been an initial period of time before he was wounded and again after he was involved in the action that saw him awarded the VC. Thus we can be confident in concluding that he is entitled to the Afghanistan Medal and the NATO Medal.
• We know from the biography profile that he has served for longer than four years.
• We know from the available information on the Australian Defence Medal that the qualification period is four years (less in some circumstance) we therefore can safely conclude that he is entitled to the ADM.

However, in the absence of someone actually publishing this, this probably crosses into WP:OR it crosses into WP:SYNTHESIS. I have removed the Meritorious Unit Citation because it has not been awarded to him. Yes, it was worn in the photographs, however this is only because he was posted to SASR at the time and was therefore entitled to wear it - in this sense it is effectively treated as a unit embellishment, no different to being entitled to wear the SASR lanyard, shoulder flashes and beret. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AusTerrapin (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe your justification for the use of the photograph is correct, and is against policy. As stated in the first two lines of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." In this case, the photograph is not necessarily a published (ie. print) source and is not exactly third-party. Also, no offence, but the information within this primary source photograph has not been interpreted by "reliable authors" but rather by Wikipedians who, while they may personally know their stiff in this area, are not recognised professionals or experts who publish on this subject area. Additionally, your final comments would impinge on WP:OR if implemented. That said, I will refrain from reverting your edits for the moment until others have contributed to this discussion. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with AusTerrapin - medal clasps are unique and easily recognisable so it seems fine to me to use the official portrait (or his medals in the AWM) as a source. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

G’day Abraham, B.S., firstly, apologies for not signing my earlier comment, I was tired and it was inadvertent.

• With regards to the final comments being original research, I have little doubt you are correct - that's why it's on the talk page and won't make it to the main article (not that a deductive argument would go on the main article page anyway).
• I don’t believe that you have read sufficiently far in to WP Reliable Sourcing Policy. It talks about using the opinions of reliable authors not Wikipedians but it also goes on to state that ‘proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgement are an indispensable part of the process.’ There is explicit reference to audio, video and multimedia material being acceptable source material in appropriate circumstances where that material has been broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third party. There is no requirement for material to be textual to be considered published. Wikipedia has a strong preference for using secondary sources, however primary sources are acceptable when used carefully to avoid original research. The Reliable Sourcing Policy is a reflection of good academic practice with the added twist of no original research due to Wikipedia’s status as a tertiary source, the difficulty of reliably establishing the credentials of Wikipedia editors and the desire for equality amongst editors. There is a distinct difference in standard of sources required to establish different things. This is in the sub-text of the Wikipedia policy, but is not overtly stated. The requirement to establish a simple fact are fairly straight forward – someone either has been awarded a medal or they have not and one only needs to reference a sufficiently authoritative source in order to establish that they have been. In this context, the primary source document is best and using it for this purpose is not original research as there is no interpretation involved – providing one understands what one is looking at or reading, only one conclusion will be arrived at. Where primary sources are unavailable, secondary sources are the next best and finally tertiary sources. If one is trying to establish more complex ideas such as why something occurred, then this is different. Here use of primary sources will involve interpretation, even if we both understand what we are looking at or reading, you and I may validly reach different conclusions as to what it means. In this context, using primary sources will result in original research and thus secondary sources have to be used.
• With regards to your comments on the source: other than his VC, all primary documentation for TPR Donaldson's other awards is currently confined to Defence personnel files and HR management systems and is not anticipated to be in the public domain for several decades - so researchers won't be able to access them. The source used is a secondary source, the Australian Department of Defence’s website, TPR Donaldson's employer and the organisation that nominated him for all of his awards. If this source cannot be relied upon, in this scenario, for this type of information then quite frankly there is no source that can be - essentially one would be saying that the whole thing is a fabrication and therefore anyone else's observation would have bought in to the fabrication. The photograph can legitimately be regarded as published – not only is it is on a Government website, it is in the media download area. Versions of this and the other photos located at Media Download 16 Jan 09 have been published in various newspapers nationally, I could have chosen to use one of those, sites, but this is as close to the source as possible without linking to wherever the Defence photographer actually downloaded the image from the camera.
• With regards to the identification, issue - all medals have been linked to their appropriate pages where readers can confirm for themselves the accuracy of the identification and these pages have links to reputable primary and third party sources. The logical conclusion of your argument about identification of medals is that no editor can contribute to Wikipedia unless they are a recognised, published English linguist (or the relevant language for non-English source material or versions of Wikipedia). This is because no one else meets the qualification criteria to have a usable interpretation of the meaning of English words and hence to even start the process of choosing which material to include or exclude on this site. How do I know that your, or I, or anyone else editing actually knows, with any degree of certainty that the words mean what they think they mean? Clearly it is not viable for Wikipedia to function like that.

• I know and respect your efforts in editing in the military history field and I applaud your devotion to improving the sourcing standards for history articles. Wikipedia works on the consensus of editors, in the field of orders, decorations and medals, you will find that Pdfpdf, PalawanOz and I (intermittently in my case) are all active editors and have confidence in each other’s recognition abilities. On the issue at hand, this talk page shows that Nick-D, Pdfpdf and I have all taken a similar position (albeit previously only an abbreviated rationale has been provided), whilst you have been the only one to dissent. I should also note that while I may not have published in the public domain, I have trained as a historian and have instructed, on the side, in the field of Australian and Imperial (UK) orders, decorations and medals for over 16 years - so I do have some expertise.AusTerrapin (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I can only concur with AusTerrapin's comments re the acceptability of the image as a reference - and as agreed by WP Reliable Sourcing Policy, "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source". All seems kosher with those guidelines PalawanOz (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Terrapin's argument seems quite comprehensive and thorough. I can't spot any issue that he hasn't addressed. What can I add? Certainly nothing that Palawan or I haven't said before. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the argument still relies on what for me is uncomfortably close to synthesis as defined in WP:OR, but consensus seems to be moving against me. David Underdown (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the early chain of logic in my initial post would constitute WP:SYNTHESIS and have amended my concluding remark in line with this. However I don't agree that the main argument (as advanced partially in the original post of 02 June 2010 and more fully in the second, more detailed, post of 03 June 2010) is WP:SYNTHESIS. The only way that I can see the idoentification of medal ribbons as being synthesis is if identification of individual words is also regarded as synthesis (per my argument above). In this event, either the policy on synthesis will need to be changed or the whole Wikipedia project will have to cease. The key aspect that I mentioned was the ability to identify ribbons/medals without there being any plausible alternatives. I am quite happy to concede that in certain circumstances plausible alternatives would exist and that therefore alternative sources should be sought. For example if the photograph being used were black and white, particularly if there were ribbons of a uniform shade, it would not be possible to identify the relevant medal(s) with the level of certainty required by Wikipedia. This is generally not the case with good quality colour images, and is certainly not the case for good quality colour images of ADF personnel in the last two decades or so. Australian insignia are sufficiently distinctive that there is no doubt about positively identifying a medal. I would love to be able to provide an alternative textual reference, but as previously mentioned, that is simply not possible at present - they don't exist in the public domain. AusTerrapin (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the belated reply – it's exam time at uni. However, I completely agree with David on the Synthesis issue, but before I get into that I will address the other points first:

• Precisely, opinions of reliable authors may be used, but not that of Wikipedians. The multimedia facet of the policy states "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source". However, this photograph is a primary source published and distributed by an involved party and this does not meet this guideline's requirements. Additionally, there are large restrictions placed on the use of primary sources within Wikipedia, as you admit, particularly in regard to original research. As WP:PRIMARY states: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation ... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." However, the use of this photograph breaches these restrictions as it involves interpretation (i.e. WP:SYNTHESIS) of the primary material.
• I am aware of the restrictions of Defence documents and service records. The photograph, however, is not a "secondary source" but a primary one. It is a photograph of the subject taken around the time of his award by an involved party. Fabrication of materials is not the argument here, but rather the interpretation of primary sourcing. Regardless of where this source has been displayed, it is still a primary source published and distributed by an involved party.
• The factor of identification violates policy on two accounts with regards to this argument. By identifying the ribbon, you are once again engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS, but also you are relying on other Wikipedia articles to validate these claims which comes under the category of self-referencing and violates WP:CIRCULAR. The juxtaposition of "identifying" words is a rather poor argument, I believe. For one, a vast and significant proportion of people in English speaking countries are educated and trained to read from a young age. However, image interpretation does not stand high on school curriculums and while a significant proportion of people can read (this includes brail) not all who can "read" can see. Additionally, without words or people's ability to read, Wikipedia would not exist; without images, although less pleasing aesthetically, Wikipedia would survive.
• I am well aware of the basis of consensus. However, canvassing support [1][2] from editors who have previously voiced an opinion that mirrors one's is a pretty poor basis for building consensus, and I am by no means the only one to dissent. Also, again no offence, but historian and author Anthony Staunton also edits here on Wikipedia, but I am yet to see him edit based on anything but reliable, published secondary sources. Once again, the "ability" to identify medals and ribbons from photographs relies upon original research and synthesis as one is drawing their own conclusion from what is depicted. Very few people would be able to readily identify what medals are displayed in a specific photograph, and the basis of information on Wikipedia is that it is easily verifiable or can be verified by anyone on reviewing a reliable source. This is actually reflected in WP:ALT. The purpose of adding alt text to images is so they can be described to blind people. However, the guidelines for alt text clearly state that the facets described must be easily identifiable to anyone, mirroring policy for sourcing and original research.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

WA Young Australian of the Year 2010

I'll leave this for someone else to decide if its worth inclusion, on November 21 Donaldson was awarded the WA Young Australian of Year Award 2010. The state recipients in each category are the finalists for the same category in the Australian of the Year awards which are announced on Jan 25 2010. source Gnangarra 15:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

ICB

I have added the ICB to TPR Donaldson's awards. Same citation rationale as for his medals. I haven't included an image at this stage as the only image presently available requires a fair use rationale. AusTerrapin (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Bot tagging

I've created an article for the New Zealand rugby player and linked the French article on Mark Donaldson to it. I've also retitled the French article page to fr:Mark Donaldson (joueur de rugby) and removed the links on that page to the Norwegian and Simple English Wikipedia pages on Mark Donaldson, VC. Between these measures, I hope that this will prevent bots from inappropriately linking the French page to this one. Interestingly, this page appears on an exception list on the French site that should have prevented the bots from linking here. With my non-existant French language skills, unfortunately, I can't translate this article for the French site - if someone else is up to the task, that might be the final nail in the coffin for the bots! Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, hopefully that should deal with it. Woody (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Official citation - a request

It really, really annoys me that I have to hunt around the references to find the link to the official citation. Can we please, please, pretty please have the link to the official citation in the external links section even if it is used as a reference. I know it is apparently against the rules but WP:IAR exists for a reason. Personally, I would like to see the official citation in the external links for all VC articles. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A lot of articles on VC recipients include the citation verbatim in the body of the article (for instance in the FA for Tom Derrick). This seems like a good idea to me. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with either of these ideas. The citation is often in the prose and referenced which would solve both issues. Woody (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

grandfather's name

Hello Mark could you please tell me if your grandfather's name was Ronald George Donaldson, who passed away around 1973 at Newcastle.  thanks Leah.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.4.85 (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark Donaldson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090206012727/http://ag.gov.au:80/portal/govgazonline.nsf/7F6A2B42E671C05ECA2575430082A8C8/$file/S%2010%20SPDF.pdf to http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/7F6A2B42E671C05ECA2575430082A8C8/$file/S%2010%20SPDF.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mark Donaldson. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/7F6A2B42E671C05ECA2575430082A8C8/%24file/S%2010%20SPDF.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.smh.com.au/national/paws-in-the-wars-how-sabi-the-bomb-dogs-on-the-ball-20091113-ie8u.html?autostart=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930171048/http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/06VF9Ejby03yS/610x.jpg to http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/06VF9Ejby03yS/610x.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Donaldson. 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/20090329090521/http://blog.awm.gov.au/awm/2009/01/22/trooper-donaldson-vc to http://blog.awm.gov.au/awm/2009/01/22/trooper-donaldson-vc/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130428041254/http://soldieron.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/20121004_MR_Soldier-On-Launch-of-Patron-in-Chief.pdf to http://soldieron.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/20121004_MR_Soldier-On-Launch-of-Patron-in-Chief.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)