This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Known unto God is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
A fact from Known unto God appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 December 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Hi
Dumelow, Thanks for this article. I am wondering if there may be errors in the refs (and therefore this article) re the actual order of the words of Keating's added inscription. I am pinging a couple of Aust MilHist editors for their help: @
Nick-D and
Hawkeye7:, sorry to bother you...,
In the section regarding the AWM Tomb of the Unknown Soldier inscription controversy, do the references have incorrect wording for the inscription?
In Devine's piece in the Telegraph
here, she has "He is one of them, and he is all of us". Likewise, the ABC ref
here also has the words 'He is one of them, and he is all of us' as part of a quote from Brendan Nelson. The ABC article has no byline so perhaps was based on a media release from Nelson with a (sic) error? Both Devine's and ABC's are dated 29 Oct 2013.
According to Keating's
speech transcript the words are "He is all of them. And he is one of us" and the AWM
ref here also cites the words as "He is all of them and he is one of us." - different punctuation but definitely "all of them" / "one of us", not the other way around per Devine and ABC.
All op-eds are unsatisfactory sources for facts, and Miranda Divine's often contain errors, so that source can be ruled out. The ABC story looks rushed. The AWM's website
[1] should be the definitive source. I can visit the Memorial and check if it would be helpful. It's worrying that this section uses blog posts by Andrew Bolt and Miranda Divine as references for facts - these are not reliable sources.
Nick-D (
talk)
06:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)reply
@
JennyOz: I visited the AWM today, and took photos of the inscriptions, which I've uploaded to Commons: on the
southern end of the tomb (facing the entry to the Hall of Remembrance) the inscription reads: "HE IS ALL OF THEM / AND HE IS ONE OF US" (with no punctuation). "KNOWN UNTO GOD" is on the
northern end of the tomb.
Nick-D (
talk)
05:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks so much for settling that
Nick-D! I am relieved that it does after all reflect the words from Keating's speech. So it appears Nelson accidentally got it wrong. Just about everything in press around Oct 2013 has the same error and there's
this NPC address by Nelson "as you walk into the hall it will say 'He is one of them, and he is all of us'." However, happily there is also this
on AWM site, and
this SMH piece. Your definitive photo confirms those last two reflect the correct version.
My thinking is to now remove both the Devine/Bolt refs and simply use the ABC ref to verify the actual 'controversy' itself. It will reduce the section a bit but it's possibly too long anyway for this article's purpose? Should I propose the revised section here on the talk page first? Thanks again,
JennyOz (
talk)
06:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Revising the story using the ABC reference seems a good idea. You might want to check if the Canberra Times also covered this.
Nick-D (
talk)
11:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi again
Nick-D, I have rewritten the section removing most of the sources with errors. I think I have kept it neutral. I've added a note re the error - though possibly not formatted correctly? Can you please check and tweak if necessary? Dumelow, sorry that an apparent simple error propagated in sources has necessitated these changes but on noticing the anomaly, I could not ignore addressing it. Please let me know any concerns. Thanks,
JennyOz (
talk)
09:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Hello all, and a happy new year. Sorry I have been away over the Christmas period and missed this. Happy with the changes made - the AWM section was really just an afterthought to the main article. I was unaware that the original sources I used were op-eds, the newspaper article didn't clearly state this -
Dumelow (
talk)
11:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)reply