Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:20, 8 October 2006

Australia: Places Unassessed

Gundagai is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Earlier discussions have been archived at Archive 1 --A Y Arktos\ 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have invoked semiprotection for this article. Any comments about the semiprotection should be directed to the relevant Request for Comment.

I will similarly semi-protect any related articles if I notice any abusive edits being carried out from the same IP range - abusive edits refers to the tone of the edit summary as well as the actual edit itself.

All editors should be aware of Misplaced Pages policies, specifically: No original research, Verifiability, No personal attacks, Civility and Etiquette. Any editors breaching any of the policies will be blocked and their contributions reverted.

Recommencing editing in less than the block period is a breach of the Blocking policy.

All editors have also been put on notice that comments on talk pages should be signed. Unsigned comments may be reverted.--A Y Arktos\ 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your semi-protection stance to reduce vandalism to this article. Rather than block in the first instance from now on, I'll semi-protect wherever necessary. Blocking will of course be used if the problem moves on to other articles. -- Longhair 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of edits and blocking

I have reverted the unsigned and abusive edit of 203.54.9.97 (talk · contribs · block log) and blocked for three hours. Avoidance of the block by this editor would be a breach of wikipedia policy.--A Y Arktos\ 22:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Another revert and block of 203.54.186.172 (talk · contribs · block log) - again for 3 hours for deliberate and provocative breach of Misplaced Pages:Etiquette--A Y Arktos\ 02:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Bruce Elder

• In an unsigned edit from IP 203.54.9.195 at 02:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC), a suggestion was made that this article included plagiarism: 'Gundagai in Literature' has not been cited. Its a blatant plagarism off Bruce Elder. Wake up to your self whoever put this here and stop plagarising (well known Australian) authors.

Plagiarism is a serious allegation.

I assume the anon editor is referring to the unattributed columns published by the Sydney Morning Herald or Fairfax which I htink are in fact written by Elder. In the case of Gundagai, the two relevant publications are Walkabout and SMH Travel. The Misplaced Pages text is largely from the creation of the article in September 2004.

Easiest comparison to my mind is probably by table:

Do others think this is plagiarism? I don't. It certainly covers similar ground - that is the nature of the topic, however, from the article on plagiarism: It is not plagiarism to use well-known 'common sense' facts. Accusations of plagiarism that are false are quite reprehensible.--A Y Arktos\ 02:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't see any plagiarism there. There are similarities, in that the same poems and songs are mentioned in roughly the same order but, as you mentioned, the nature of the topic is to mention the literature surrounding Gundagai. Next we will be accused of plagiarism because our article also mentions the Dog on the Tuckerbox. I am presuming the anon user is trying to find ways to discredit the article after failing to insert his/her POV in the article. --Roisterer 10:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite visiting us twice yesterday, she didn't seem inclined to respond to this discussion point, despite making the allegation in the first place.--A Y Arktos\ 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Two additions of 12 August (reverted as reproducing material on plagiarism from other websites as well as being unsigned), did not deal with the actual lack of congruence of the text. Anon editor was warned twice with {{Nothanks-drm}}--A Y Arktos\ 10:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I did respond to the content above re plagarism, but 'they' deleted it too or reverted it. I think they deleted it like they did what I put on Rfc. I forget now. Its all been too bizarre.

What I put re plagarism was put there a couple of days ago, and disappeared again as they do to all I post.

The comment I put here previously that was deleted in part, dealt witht he fact that till about 3 years ago, Bruce Elder also noted Middleton Drive on his Gundagai Walkabout site, assigning Middleton as another literati he knew of from when he was at Uni. Bruce erroneously thought this Middleton Drive a name assigned when the town was originally surveyed in around 1840.

However, Middleton Drive is named for the Pres of the then local Apex Club because he arranged those large poplars to be planted along there where they are, in the 1960s.

I think it a pity now Bruce Elder corrected that Middleton Drive reference he had on his Gundagai Walkabout site as I am betting if he hadnt, it also would have been noted on the wik site as one of the early named streets.

Heaps of Other Literary Streets

Gundagai has a heap of literary named streets. The ones named here that are the same as the ones named on the Walkabout site, leave all the others out. Because of this, most of Gundagai's story as told through the streets and noted for its "remarkable nomenclature" by GA Robinson, isnt noted. Thus, noting just a few of the streets as is done here, is like telling the story of Red Riding Hood but starting and finishing at the title.

Yarri

I seen the post on AN/I and just wanted to understand the issue here. Is there a reason the kicking Yarri story the anon is trying to insert is being removed? is it fiction? a copy-vio issue or something else? Not taking sides just wondering, it seems sourced, so I was wondering what the reason was. --NuclearUmpf 12:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder why the anon was being reverted. If it is a copy-vio the content can be rewritten. Gimmetrow 12:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

1879 I believe would be predating copyright law. Not 100% sure. --NuclearZer0 12:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw this reversion, it looked like the added content was very close to the phrasing of hte 2003 ABC.net.au article, which would be under copyright. If that is why it was reverted, it can be rewritten. Gimmetrow 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The text on ABC is in quotation marks meaning they are reciting it word for word as it appeared, that would mean the original story is posted in that form in the newspaper, making the copyright, if one existed from 1879. If ABC didnt create the story they cant own the copyright anyway. I believe stories written before 1939 or something close are too old to be copyrights anyway. Also I believe written stories coyprights expire after 100 years, we should ask the copyright peopel about that if its the last issue. --NuclearZer0 13:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I thought it had some of the non-quoted text too. Gimmetrow 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

1879 the source is out dated and I can't even find it. -- Bidgee 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at the ABC.net.au article, which I was able to find quite easily. It references the 1879 newspaper. Gimmetrow 13:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

How do we know if the ABC has used parts of this story without checking it's sources? -- Bidgee 13:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Is ABC a reliable source according to WP:RS? What basis do you have for doubting it? Gimmetrow 13:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no copyright on the 1879 Yarri story. Its still appropriate to note its origin though so it can be checked, plus also polite to do so re original author/publisher.

I put the 1879 article re Yarri here and its copied word for word from its source,a nd its two sources given. Bidgee can easily check as there is a copy of Butchers book in the town library of the town he lives in as he well knows. He can also come to Gundgaai and see the original source on microfische or get the library where he lives to get the copy sent over which would take maybe a week, and he can view it at his local library. Bidgee would know all this. If he checks the artcle also, he can see its fully cited.

Well the story itself doesn't have the source to the 1879 article and it's only one source (We can't see whats in the 1879 article since we don't know where to find it). -- Bidgee 13:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats not how WP:RS works. Since ABC passes WP:RS we have to assume that they did their research. The ABC link says the story came from the newspaper and so its a legitamate source. We should list ABC however as the source and not the Gundagai Times, since we are really using ABC for our information. --NuclearZer0 13:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear, the above is NOT how u cite the article. U MUST cite the original source. Do it like this >>> Yarri article 1879 in ABC Online http://www.abc.net.au

I think ABC (it would have originated at ABC Riverina) got it out of Butchers book though, in which case, all three cites must be there as per above, with one added. The original cite goes in italics, then the next is underlined, then the next something else. All three must be noted though. If ABC got it straight from the original paper at Gundagai Library, then no need to cite Butchers book but MUST cite its original source.

I just wanted to point out that some of the information they were adding to Coolac seems to be true as well regarding the dog. I found this same information repated elsewhere, not the poisoning scandal issue, but of the dog. It appears that the dog on the tuckerbox story is what put Gundagai on the world map apparently. This is why its usually best to selective edit instead of revert. I will clean up what they were trying to add later today if I get a chance. --NuclearZer0 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are the links about the anon which states that I'm wrong . Can someone have a look at it for me? Also I have recordings of the local news but the copyright act stops me from uploading it. -- Bidgee 14:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying the massacre happened as I pointed out. I cant find anything on it in relation to the dog. I was just stating that the dog and accompanying poem is what made Gundagai famous world wide (didnt know it was). As for the massacre I am not even sure how to verify that as I have yet to find sources stating it and feel analyzing poems for contextual meaning is not proper, and so should not be used for a source, that is just my opinion and you may want to ask the folks at WP:CITE for a firmer response. --NuclearZer0 14:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Locus of dispute

Looking very briefly at the article and the edit summaries left by the anon editor two days ago, it seems to me that the real dispute is that the article says the 1853 flood was the beginning of reconciliation, while the anon wants to point out that racism and abuse of natives actually continued for many years. As usual, the answer to a dispute over information and sources is more information and more sources.

First, I have to point out that it is not vandalism to want to say such a thing, it is a content dispute, and editors need to work together rather than making assumptions and blind reverting. The anon editor was editing inartfully, but it wasn't vandalism.

You can not say in the article that the flood was the basis of reconciliation; that's opinion and original research. You can report that other people have said so if you have a source for it. Likewise you can not call this view a racist whitewash, but you can report if other people have said so. And the incident and controversy over it may need to be introduced in a better way. For example,

Gundagai was flooded in 1852 and many residents were saved by three natives in their canoe.(ref) Gundagai residents point to this incident as the beginning of the reconciliation process (ref). However, historian John Smith has noted that racist incidents and harassment of natives continued in Gundagai for nearly 50 years after the flood (ref). For example, in 1897, a visitor to the town saw several locals abusing a blackman, whom he acertained was Yarri, one of the heroes of the 1852 flood (ref).

Appropriate references vary. For the statement that locals consider their town the start of the reconciliation movement you could use the towns own web site or a published history of the town even if it is arguably biased. You can report what people say about themselves, expecting it to be biased in their favor; reporting that they say it about themselves is different from reporting that it is true. For statements that harrassment of natives continued until 1897 the 1897 newspaper is adequate; as a professional news network (not a blog or other advocacy site) we must take the ABC report of what the newspaper said at face value unless someone actually gets a copy of the 1897 article.

The point is you need sources and to report what other people have said and written in those sources, and not to include your own conclusions, opinions or interpretations. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 15:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just ONE gundagai local (out of 3,000) claims the town is the cradle of reconcilitation. Its said to gain commercial kudos.

Thanks for your input, (above). I dont reg as it isnt compulsory - is it. No need to. Is that like not stepping forward to volunter, then all others step back?

Attacks on Indigenous people continue at Gundagai (recorded in nationwide media) up to Sept 2005.

The reconcilitation claim is uncited, incorrect and twaddle. Isnt wik after more correct content?

I am being deleted from my comments on Rfc by these same editors. Can Rfc be deleted by editors?

the anonymous editor

I would like to hear from the anonymous editor on my talk page before I unprotect the article. I would like to know why he/she hasn't or can't register for an account, and I would like to discuss editing techniques. However I do not want to leave aonymous editors locked out forever. Thatcher131 15:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Might want to ask why they never sign their posts either, leaving it for the likes of everyone else to clean up. Good luck. You'll need it. -- Longhair\ 09:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Longhair, go take a quick eze. Spread yr misery elsewhere.

I'm giving you one clear warning. Stop wish your personal attacks, or be blocked once again. -- Longhair\ 10:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Bidgee imagines the Wagga paper is a credible source re Gundagai. So funny. No paper is regarded as a credible source of info. They are largely just words on paper, then when they are corrected, they use the correction as more news. Its also funny how the poor old platypus became politcal. No one does that to magpies. Some humans minds work so weird many times.

Your comment is misleading. It wasn't just in the paper it was on both Prime and Win News. Wiki classes papers as credible sources. -- Bidgee 10:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What was in the Wagga paper and on Prime and Win News? Was it the recent update re Coolac? If so, that is because last week there was a media briefing as I have told u elsewhere. I have tried to get the media to report coolac better as there is some really interesting arch stuff happening but Doug Hogan for example told me that it was up to Indigenous people to invite them. As its all being run by the RTA, it was up to the RTA to issue invites. Seems they did but as there is not much known by the media, (to lead to asking questions etc etc), I guess not much was reported. The recent current issues such as platypus and when is it to start got discussed though. The media is only as good as it wants to and can be.

Re the yarri bashing the local 1879 newspaper source is OK as that was reporting an observation of a bashing which is pretty straightforward. Re Coolac the media reporting has been totally woeful, starting first as some sort of joint media campaign claiming that 'roads kill' to get the bypas started ignoring that the bypass cannot start till the EIS is completed properly under Oz Law no matter what the meeja think they can influence - as it eventuated the last 2 years in reality, totally contrary to the meeja campaign. Bet the meeja sold more papers etc because of their failed 'roads kill' campaign which meant that commercially, they were successful. Killer roads. I think DSM-V has a category for that sort of claim (aka delusional). Next we will hear about iceblock eating roads perhaps. Personified roads.

Re promoting Gundgaai as the cradle of reconcilitation - this idea sprang up around 2001 when it was decided to get funding to jazz up the Old Gundgaai Site (that the 1852 Flood washed away) and promote it as a tourist attraction. Small towns and topurism is a big deal post the 1993 LGA. Small towns are now expected to fund themselves as much as possible rather than expecting the State Gov to do so for stuff it should not have to. Multiple funding applications re the Old Gundgaai Site were made by the then Heritage Advisor. An amount of near $500,000 was sought I think to tizz the site up and to link it back into the local museum with a viewing platform etc. for tourists. They were going to curb and gutter the site and put in signs etc etc. so people could view - basically, nothing. When the applications were received in Sydney, they were rejected. Heritage specialists in Sydney think professionally and probably a bit different to the intentions and politics of small town locals, re some issues and other massively significant heritage. Promoting Gundagai as the cradle of reconcilitation a few years back fitted in with the propsed European image building for the town as an ethnocentric tourist drawcard. Bit like creating the Gallipoli legend for the nation.

Cradle of Reconcilation is a huge claim. It would need to be correct and given there were multiple massacres around this area and the reports of the Commissioners for Aboriginal people also tell a different story, Gundagai is probably one of the last places to be able to legitimately make that claim.

You know, post the 1852 Flood, the NSW Government would not send food supplies or any other assisatnce as they were still very unimpreseed with Gundagai re the Coolac Massacre and its cover up, some 20 years previously. It wasnt only that Aboriginal people saved many non Aboriginal from the flood in 1852, they also then assisted them to find bush food and helped the community get back on its feet. The 'deaths'of Aboriginal people continued after that though. In the 1860s the professional people arrived in town and took major offence at Indigenous peopel being here, so they hunted them. Peter Read records that but its also noted in the old newspapers.

If Gundagai wants to reconcile, it should admit what has happened previously, officially apologise and go on from there rather than acting like a dog with a bone re surveys of Aboriginal heritage. Gundagai may want to 'reconcile' but its a non Indigenous concept to wash away the past, with probably no relevance to Indigenous people. An offical 'sorry' and admissions re past massacres might be more effective with every support given to put plaques on the massacre sites. Maybe if the town did 20 years of stuff such as this, it might then have the basis of a credible claim re Reconcilitation but it can never claim to be where reconcilation started. Indigenous peopel had always welcomed non Indigenous people untill the land grabs and murders became a feature of it as well.

The Old Gundagai Site is now back under the care and control of the herd of cattle who live there and no curbing or guttering of the area happened, and the Public Money that would have been wasted doing this, wasnt wasted. Other damage to significant heritage also didnt happen.

Australia : NSW : Riverina and Wagga Wagga Tuesday, 6 September 2005. 13:43 (AEST) Crop-duster's spray hits group of Aborigines Emergency services are on stand-by in the village of Coolac in south-west New South Wales to treat a group of 19 people who were sprayed by a crop-duster this morning.

The chemical is yet to be identified.

A group of Aboriginal people and Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) staff had been walking the route of the proposed Hume Highway bypass of Coolac looking for sites of Aboriginal significance.

Police spokeswoman Sarah Vickery says no-one is showing signs of ill health and it is unclear if it was deliberate.

"We don't know whether they knew the people were there or not so we're appealing for anyone for anyone who might have witnessed the incident or knows anything about a low-flying crop-duster in the area to contact police," she said.

The Source of the 'Gundagai as Cradle of Reconcilation' Claim

I just read the Yarri story by Bodie Asimus.

It is not a credible source.

It was written by a school child as part of a competition Lateline/ABC ran.

There are no references re any of the content though there are many available.

Bodie Asimus does not live in Gundgaai. They are Sydney people I think. His Mum used to do the PR/promotion for Maccas or something similiar.

The story is not listed in the ABC Lateline archives for that date which further notes it isnt offical Lateline content, reported and published by adult ABC journalists, who would be members of the journalists union and subject to ABC editorial and publication rules etc. As such, it wouldnt qualify as acceptable under wik guidelines re its veracity as its content would not have been checked as being within guidelines.

Its simply, an uncited STORY written by a child as part of a competition - not official ABC reporting. Stories can have any or no level of fact in them. One or two in Gundagai might try and push a claim re reconcilation as a public relations/town image building exercise, but it is not anything to do with even minority town thought. Post the collapse of the Old Gundagai Heritage Tourism Plan a few years back, Gundgaai doesnt push that line these days preferrign to be the opposite on many occassions. These days, Gundgaai is trying to establish that it is Iirsh as a tourism thing hence the first turning wave festival a few weeks back. This festival was very short on an audience going on its online reviews so I am not sure the town sees itself as irish either. Maybe in 2010 Gundagai will be claiming its really a lost planet from outer space that landed as a meteorite 50 years ago, as a tourist incentive?

Indeed, Gundagai Shire Council on its Social Plan that is online, in regard to Indigenous people, notes Gundgaai as a tolerant community??? Tolerant? of what and whom? 'Tolerant' doesnt really tally with 'reconcilation'.

It would be better to note here that Gundagai Shire Council on behalf of the community, sees the community as tolerant rather than making a claim as being the cradle of reconcilation.

Tolerant?

Gundagai has a massively significant and unique identity but as its an Indigneous one we need to hide that. Dont tell anyone - OK.

We were trying to help by finding a page that cites the content you wanted to include. If the ABC page is not a WP:RS, then it can't be cited for anything. Moved to external links for now, likely to be deleted. Gimmetrow 14:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Good as that 'reconcilation' artcle written by Bodie Asimus, was written by a child as part of a competition that ABC Lateline ran. The article is not one written by ABC Journalists.

The 'Yarri getting kicked' article is credible and fully cited and those cites are very easily able to be checked by bidgee in his home town. The cites have also been published wider than that too with a copy of Butchers book (that the yarri article is in) in numerous places, including in the National Library of Australia. Copies of the orignal article in the old newspaper are also available at the National Library, as well as in Gundgaai Library.

• Unassessed Australia articles
• Unknown-importance Australia articles
• Unassessed Australian places articles
• Unknown-importance Australian places articles
• WikiProject Australian places articles
• WikiProject Australia articles