Talk:Admiral William Brown

Radio banning

I agree that this article should be kept based on the coverage in reliable sources, but I am sceptical of the claim that the Wolfe Tones have been banned from British radio for 40 years. Nobody has the authority to ban anyone from all radio, whether the BBC or private, in the UK. Of course stations can choose not to play a particular band, but that's different from banning. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi.

RE: "sceptical of the claim that the Wolfe Tones have been banned". I fully understand this skepticism. It is the reason I changed the relevant text. From "the group were banned" to "the group claim they were banned".

RE: "[skeptical that anybody] has the authority to ban anyone". I don't understand this skepticism. Censorship is a reality. In every country. Including the UK. Under the Broadcasting Acts, the Broadcasting Authority, the Broadcast ban and otherwise. All applicable in the 1980s. On all broadcasters.

RE: "stations can choose not to play a band, but that's different from banning". While I understand this argument, it should be remembered that, until the growth of ILR in the 1970s, the BBC had a legal monopoly on radio broadcasts in the UK. So a choice by that broadcaster could have the same effect as a ban.

In honesty, much of this subjective discussion is just that. Subjective opinion. Rather than objective reflection of the sources. And we edit based on the sources. As it stands, and to my read, the existing text reflects the existing sources. Stating that "while the song not released by the group in the UK,[1] the group has stated that it was banned.[2]" If there are further sources (which confirm or challenge the existing text), or a proposed change to how we reflect the existing sources, happy to have the discussion. In short: If further changes are proposed, please highlight what those proposed changes might be. And the basis (e.g. additional sources) for those changes. Guliolopez (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This was discussed in the deletion debate. As that's finished, I'll go over my views again. I don't think that the article should say that it was banned. First, I agree with Phil Bridger that a decision not to play the song doesn't mean that it was banned. As I mentioned in the deletion debate, RTÉ didn't play the Wolfe Tones in this period either. As RTÉ is modelled on the British BBC, a ban on one should be treated as equivalent to a ban on the other. I imagine that a lot of radio stations in other countries didn't play the song. Was it banned in every country where the state broadcaster didn't play the song? I'd say not. Furthermore, I don't like taking a band member's view on this, as is the current source. It reminds me of when the rapper KRS-One went on a half-an-hour rant on BBC Radio 1 about how he didn't get played on there (August 1997). Musicians are always saying that they've been "banned" and they shouldn't be taken too literally on this. They're often just promoting their own business, and shouldn't be taken as a robust source. As a last point, the British broadcasting voice restrictions didn't come in until 1988, which was after this song was made. They were based on pre-existing restrictions in Ireland, which had been in force since 1968 and were in force at the time that the song was released. If anything, I'd say that there's more of a case to say that the song was banned in the Republic of Ireland, but the Wolfe Tones' biases mean that they focus on Britain. Epa101 (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

In honesty, and with apologies, I'm still struggling to understand what change you are proposing. As it stands, and as above and as per the available refs, the current text effectively reads: "while the group reputedly did not release the song in the UK,[3] the band has stated that it was banned.[4]". What about this are you planning to change? Because, in honesty, if you are proposing to remove the latter part of the sentence ENTIRELY, then that isn't how we would typically address what might appear to be WP:BIASEDSOURCES or WP:SELFSOURCES. So long as we state "source X says A, source Y says B", and let the reader sort it out themselves, we are following the expected norms. COMPLETELY discounting a source, on the basis only of an editor's opinion, isn't really in keeping with the related/linked guidelines... Guliolopez (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Guliolopez I certainly would delete it. In the short article, giving such precedence to the view of a member of the Wolfe Tones violates WP:UNDUE. I disagree that this article is in line with others. We don't state bizarre fascist views in articles about Skrewdriver and similar Nazi bands. The current version gives too much weight to the self-interest rant of a man who thinks that Britain banned a song that his band never released. Epa101 (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

While I kinda understand the point, I do not agree with deleting that content entirely. The current wording ('while the group apparently didn't release the song in the UK, some band members stated it was banned') reflects the sources. Without giving undue weight (or "agreement") to one perspective or another. In a way that is consistent with WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. And not (as we're talking about 20 words in half a sentence) inconsistent with WP:UNDUE. Given that, in particular, many of the sources refer to the band's claims, it would (IMO) actually seem inappropriate to just ignore the claims completely... Guliolopez (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)