Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Newspaper archive help 2 RIP Australian Places Gazetteer 3 Proposed moved: Australian Gannnet to Australasian Gannet 4 Wikipedia mentioned in Media Watch 5 DYK 6 Blowie 7 Article on Wayne Smith and bindiirwin dot com 8 Lofty Aropax 9 Bushfires 10 renaming ANZ Bank 11 2002 Bali bombing article 12 Gough Whitlam is Australian collaboration 13 A Cry in the Dark (Evil Angels) 14 Australia voter turnout 15 The Dome 16 2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy 17 Admiralty House/Kirribilli House open day 18 Australia Literature content on Wikipedia lambasted in the Australian 19 Keysar Trad 20 "Official" edit to Victorian Certificate of Education by VCAA? 21 Former Featured Articles 22 Articles on Aussie bloggers 23 Wikiproject Gold Coast 24 Next Melbourne meetup? 25 Wally Foreman 26 Coolac massacre 27 SMH Article 28 Link between HG Nelson (politician) & HG Nelson (character)?

[edit] Newspaper archive help

A while ago, some information I had on Ahmed Habib (son of Mamdouh Habib) was removed as I linked to a blog with a copy of an article rather than linking to the article itself. Would someone with access to archives be able to confirm that the content about Ahmed is backed up by the following article: "Prisoner's son charged with kidnap" The Sunday Telegraph, 23 NOV 2003, Page 017. Thanks, Andjam 00:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's essentially what is in the newspaper article. However Islam Hassam is the victim's twin brother, not Habib's brother. Your wording is also a little loose about who was involved - all that the newspaper alleges Habib to have done is to have been present, and intervening to have the woman put into the back seat rather than the boot.

I would refrain from putting this information in, however, since there is no subsequent reporting anywhere on the incident and the allegation doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. I imagine that it was only reported in the first place because of the connection to Mamdouh Habib. --bainer (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RIP Australian Places Gazetteer

It appears that Monash have removed the Australian Places Gazetteer from their website [1]. This was an incredibly useful tool for editing entries on suburbs and towns. Cnwb 01:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How irritating - I don't understand why they'd take it down rather than archive it. It should still be available on archive.org though. Rebecca 02:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the list of place names with active links to the articles can be found here.--Melburnian 03:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Did that resource have additional information not available from Geoscience Australia's Place Name Search? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, often quite detailed historical information for each of the localities covered (mostly in Victoria).--Melburnian 01:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed moved: Australian Gannnet to Australasian Gannet

I have proposed a move which may be of interest to Kiwis and Aussies. Check out the discussion here Talk:Australian Gannet Nil Einne 08:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia mentioned in Media Watch

The wikipedia entry on the Mitchell Freeway is mentioned in an article on plagiarism. Andjam 13:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

The DYK section featured on the main page is always looking for interesting new and recently expanded stubs from different parts of the world. Please make a suggestion.--Peta 01:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blowie

I know this sounds silly, but could someone confirm the veracity of this edit. I have been reverting the rest of the edits of this UQ Residence hall IP, however, this one is the closest to regular, and since Wikipedia is not censored for children, I am slightly reluctant to revert it. [2] Ansell 12:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It was reverted anyway after the anon's next edit ([3]). --bainer (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Wayne Smith and bindiirwin dot com

In the Sydney Morning Herald: Unauthorised Bindi site 'not unethical'. An article on Wayne Smith (better known in wikipedia as Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily), focusing on him cybersquatting bindiirwin dot com along with hosting anti-government and anti-Israel web sites. No mention of wikipedia (probably for the best!) Andjam 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a brief mention of Wikipedia in the related story however. See Bindi website squatter 'abhorrent' from October 5. -- Longhair\^talk 06:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"... The main reason I purchased it was to keep it out of the hands of advertising agencies." Sure Wayne. [4] -- I@n 14:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lofty Aropax

There appear to be a number of spoof articles inserted by Theoriginalrevdoc with druggy names: Lofty Aropax, Mogodàn, Zoloft Aropax, a Life of Sad Stories (and linked to Woonona, New South Wales). Might need to be deleted.--Grahamec 14:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Taken care of. Thanks for pointing these out. --Peta 14:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bushfires

While Australia has had some really terrible bushfires (like Ash Wednesday, Canberra 2003 etc); most bushfires are not suitable material for an encyclopedia. Instead of writing an article about every fire that occurs (there are 10s of big fires every year) would people please consider doing any of the following:

1. Contributing a story to wikinews
2. Adding the detail to the relevant town, region, or national park article

Thanks. --Peta 04:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But every year there are one or two, or a weeks worth, that truly make the news and should have their own article, such as 2006 Location bushfires or the November 2006 bushfires in Location? But agreed not every fire that (unfortunately) burns a house down should be its own article. The Bushfires article has links to the major ones. --Steve 06:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not create a list for each year, which contains the major bushfires of that year, e.g. Australian bushfires of 2006 (or whatever naming convention you want). You could then inlcude some information on each fire within the list (using a table). --liquidGhoul 06:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a similar suggestion on the AfD page that inspired this post - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2006_Eastern_New_South_Wales_bushfires - the name I suggested was 2006-07 Australian bushfire season -- Chuq 06:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's strange that for geography related topics there are those that would create an article for every rocky outcrop in Australia, but for other areas the move is to aggregate them up from the outset. I concur with the super-article and the sub-articles for notable ones --Steve 07:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

- Perhaps an article covering the whole of a Bushfire season. For example, Victoria has already had quite a few fires this season. A 2006 Victorian Bushfires or bushfire season might be good. --Crazycrazyduck 10:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve, Chuq, Crazyduck I agree with that approach. See how the hurricanes and cyclones are done already. It is a really effective pattern to follow I think. It helps that all cyclones are named which gives them an advantage (see 2005 Pacific hurricane season for example), but a 2005 Australian bushfire season article would still have enough notable information to constitute a full article and summarise major distastrous fires. I think the level of disastrousness to warrant a sub article for a single cluster of fires would have to be like that of Ash Wednesday so there would be fewer sub-articlse than for the parallel hurricane article. — Donama 01:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(somewhat off topic) I'll second Steve's comment that we are inconsistent in our application of notability. An obscure species of fungus is unanimously considered notable, but an obscure historical figure may generate heated debate. A rocky outcrop is notable because it is a geographical feature, but last year's bushfire is not, even though it generated pages of broadsheet coverage, simply because it is an event that has passed.

(on topic) I think that any bushfire that received significant media coverage merits Wikipedia content. I have no objection to that content appearing in a stand-alone article.

Snottygobble 01:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

But what is significant media coverage? Every big fire will get a mention in local or national media; I don't think that automatically qualifies a fire in Australia (given the number and frequency of fires each year) worthy of an encyclopedia article. --Peta 02:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have long ago accepted that I cannot convince you all to adopt my unusually low notability threshold. Instead, perhaps we could agree to write articles only about those bushfires (or other disasters) that are gazetted disasters, as determined by whether or not they appear in the EMA Disasters Database - "the primary Australian Government database containing records of all natural and non-natural disasters within Australia". Snottygobble 02:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a neat database. Do you know how current it is?--Peta 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is constantly maintained. The very second that a disaster is gazetted as such, it gets added to the database. Snottygobble 03:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Replying to Snottygobble's comment - I guess the reasoning may be that a small town and a bushfire cover similar areas, yet a town exists for decades/centuries, whereas a bushfire exists for a couple of days. The total media coverage that the town has received over its entire existence is probably greater that the coverage of a bushfire would get over a week. -- Chuq 05:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The seasons for bushfires is probably the best approach then. For example, the fire at Yallorn currently has the potential to cut Victoria's energy supply by a third (well I don't know the latest, it had this morning)- while it isnt worthy of an article on its own it is quite a large fire. Perhaps even an article for the whole country (ie- 2006-07 Australian Bushfire Season or whatever the appropriate naming convention is). --Crazycrazyduck 08:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] renaming ANZ Bank

There is a discussion at Talk:ANZ Bank#Incorrect Article Name suggesting that the current name of the ANZ Bank article is wrong. More thoughts would be appreciated. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree that the name was incorrect - the company's full name is Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, with ANZ being the only approved abbreviation. The only public reference I've seen to this was in AFR, but this message has been communicated within the bank for several years. I've just moved the article to Australia and New Zealand Banking Group as per the discussion and switched most links. Pedronet 14:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2002 Bali bombing article

An editor is claiming that Abu Bakir Bashir wasn't found guilty of conspiracy for the bombings. Would wikipedians interesting in this issue be able to help? Thanks, Andjam 08:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're as lazy as I, 2002 Bali Bombing. Lankiveil 04:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Gough Whitlam is Australian collaboration

The current Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight is United States-Australia relations. Every fortnight a different Australia-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked. Please read the nomination text and improve the article any way you can.

The article Gough Whitlam is a former featured article, and has been selected for us to collaborate to return it to that status.

I have been travelling, and nobody else selected a new collaboration, so National Gallery of Australia was selected for four weeks from 17 September 2006 to 15 October 2006.

• 5 contributors made 25 edits
• See how it changed

I have extended the deadlines for removal of current nominations to allow for the slower turnover of the last two collaborations. There are several that will expire in the next few days anyway if no more people vote for them. Please have a look at Current candidates and Category:Australia collaboration candidates and vote if you want to. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What were the problems that led to it losing FA status? Lankiveil 15:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Converting some text to prose, doing a slight reorganisation and adding a plethora of footnotes shouldn't be too hard. Gough is certainly an interesting character—I'll attempt to get my hands on some books. michael ^talk 15:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Gough Whitlam.--cj | talk 03:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Cry in the Dark (Evil Angels)

Shouldn't this article on the original fictional movie about the Azaria Chamberlain dissapearance be under its original Australia-release name, Evil Angels. It is the original name, and its English in an English speaking country. --ZayZayEM 02:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. If the article was originally produced under a certain name, and that name is still actually in use then I do not see any reason why it should not be the main title. Ansell 01:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia voter turnout

I would like to gauge interest in the Australia page with reference to a consistent removal of statements, for the reason that the information is "irrelevant". I, and two other editors so far, happen to think that australias high voter turnout is a relevant fact on the page. Ansell 01:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please keep discussion centralised at Talk:Australia.--cj | talk 01:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I brought the discussion here to open it up. BTW, I notice you have not discussed it there yet. Ansell 01:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dome

Please watch the edits of user:Melbcity who is pushing an essay by Arnold Zable. -- RHaworth 08:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy

I have started an article on this terrible and escalating controversy. Please assist with maintaining NPOV (difficult in a case like this) and edit when the story develops. The article's title is fairly ambiguous, but I think acceptable; feel free to move the page if you have a better proposal. Harro5 05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the revert war on this at Werribee, Victoria also. --Bduke 06:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admiralty House/Kirribilli House open day

If anyone is interested there is an open day for Kirribilli and Admiralty House on October 29th. It costs money, but it would be fantastic to get some photos (at least outdoor ones if they let you), given that the public can't get anywhere near them normally. Details here. (JROBBO 06:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Australia Literature content on Wikipedia lambasted in the Australian

See this article in The Australian. I quote the following:

"Why should anyone in Australia care? Wikipedia is a US-based site. It has no official status: no government funding, no university imprimatur, no editor-in-chief. But then, neither does Google, the search engine whose name recently made it into the Oxford English Dictionary as a verb."

I don't think the author is aware that there are more than a number of Australian admins and contributors. He She (oops!) does have a point about the dire situation about articles about our authors though. Anyone game enough to give it a go at fixing this situation? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. in case anyone thinks I'm having a go, I think their suggestion is very good:

"If it's not my job to clean it up -- and such a task is utterly beyond the resources of a single person anyway -- then whose is it? Editing Wikipedia is easy. You don't have to join, although it helps. A page can be updated in seconds by anyone, or created in minutes by a member. Any writer, publisher, agent, arts bureaucrat or editor could add a listing for themselves, their colleagues, their clients or their organisation in moments -- and add it to a watchlist to guard against misinformation."

"Perhaps the people who administer the Patrick White Award could take a moment to honour the past recipients with listings; perhaps a student writing her thesis on Australian short stories could spend half an hour adding a few words; maybe even the Australia Council could get their PR people to improve its listing beyond "stub" status. That's how those million-plus articles got there to start with: people cared enough to spend their time writing them. The state of Wikipedia makes me wonder if anyone in Australia cares about the international face of our literature, and about the next generation of readers. (They certainly care about football: "Australian Rules", a well-written entry, has 18 verifiable references: "Australian Literature" has none.) In other words, it's everyone's job."

"Meanwhile, I'm off to create that listing for Jessica Anderson. It's what Patrick White would have wanted." - Ta bu shi da yu 10:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm out of my head, but I certainly didn't see that article as a criticism of Wikipedia. It merely seemed to be a call-to-arms for people who care about Australian Literature to get stuck in and put some decent information about great Australia authors up on the world's most read encyclopaedia. Good on 'im! Leeborkman 11:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, I didn't see it as an attack, but certainly pointing out one of Wikipedia's current weak spots, with a very nice suggestion on how the average Joe could help fix things. Likewise, good on 'er! Confusing Manifestation 13:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought it was a decent article and let's face facts, it was basically true. Okay, she doesn't have a great understanding of some aspects of Wikipedia, but she's on the money when she writes about certain areas of Australian content lacking. We should be grateful to her for her call-to-arms. Maybe we'll see some new Aussie editors. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, to the people referring to the journalist as "he", her name is Jenny Sinclair and hence, I assume, female. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, hence when I noticed her username was her real name, I linked to her talk page. Confusing Manifestation 02:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. My mistake! "Lambasted" was also the wrong term for me to use, it makes things look confrontational. A bit misleading, and not something that I meant to imply. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bit to Jessica Anderson and created a Nancy Phelan stub. I'll add some more of the Patrick White Award redlinks over the next week. --Canley 04:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of a peripheral conversation about this - more particularly about Western Australia has occurred also at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australia -SatuSuro

Coming in late, I hope it wasn't interpreted as an attack, any more than any pointing out of areas in need of improvement is an attack. Yes, I'm aware there are Australians working on Wikipedia, but few literature specialists; and the aim of the article was to draw in experts who may not be existing Wikipedia contributors.

I've also been made aware of the collaboration of the fortnight area, and I'll be going there to put this up for consideration too. Cheers, Jenny Sinclair 10:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In the days after Jenny's article was published, I noticed two new people editing Australian literature articles. They had signed up the day and the day after the article was published. Sadly, though, one (who appeared to be from the Australian Society of Authors) was posting copyright violations. :( Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keysar Trad

Anybody else care to add it to their watchlist. Made only a few minor inputs myself. It was created today or yesterday, propelled into WP following the Sheik Taj controversy. It wasn't there around lunch time yesterday when I looked for info about Trad. — Donama 07:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Official" edit to Victorian Certificate of Education by VCAA?

This seems a bit suss to me. (See also User:Vcaaweb) I mentioned it on WP:AN to no great effect. Any thoughts? It seems rather the same to me as allowing a company to edit its own article, or an individual for that matter. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm, all I can think of is when US congress edited articles on political topics they were reverted without further thought. However, this account should probably be blocked as a shared account, see the userpage, it says "Our account was created so we can keep track of (and remediate) pages of interest the the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA)". Either way this account probably shouldn't be editing that article .... Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's what the blocking policy says at all. It says that ""Public" accounts, where the password is publicly available or shared with a large group" can be blocked - the password isn't publicly accessible, and if it's restricted to the web unit of a government department, it's not really a "large group" at all. Has anyone emailed them to check on their claim of who they are? enochlau (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, seems I misintrpreted User talk:X when I read it a while back :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As long as they are updating the article, keeping themselves to uncontroversial facts, I don't see anything wrong with it. A short look at the diff suggests that this is the case. The text is parly a copy of http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/adults/vce_adult.html which has a copyright notice, so we might want to seek confirmation that the account is indeed the VCAA. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a read over m:Role account which covers this more precisely than the blocking policy. -- Longhair\^talk 11:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former Featured Articles

I note that Platypus and Brolga were former featured articles. I just had a go at rewritingthe intro for platypus as it was a bit unwieldy but surely shouldn't take too much work to get Featured again...Cas Liber 09:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Sarus crane is in better shape than Brolga in some ways....Cas Liber 05:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Platypus is a current Featured article candidate.Cas Liber 06:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles on Aussie bloggers

I notice there are some really notable (in my opinion) Aussie bloggers missing from the Category:Australian bloggers. For example Mark Bahnish of Larvatus Prodeo blog who is kind of like a father of Australian blogging doesn't have an article at all. And much-read group blogs like Larvatus Prodeo are probably notable in their own right even if some of the individual bloggers who contribute to them aren't. What do you think? Are Aussie bloggers notable just for being bloggers? Will this open a Pandora's box of wondering how good their blog has to be before they could be considered a "notable" blogger? Other thoughts? — Donama 01:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In order to avoid original research or unreliable sources, I'd suggest people cite what dead tree media have written about bloggers, rather than citing the blog itself. Andjam 01:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Gold Coast

I just started Wikipedia:WikiProject Gold Coast. -- Nathannoblet 06:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Link added! -- Chuq 00:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of WikiProjects, is WikiProject Lake Macquarie still active? It only has 2 users and not much seems to have been done in the last while... Is it still going or should it be merged in, with, say, WikiProject Sydney? JROBBO 05:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd merge it. It was Tim Starling's idea, if I remember rightly, but he never did anything else with it and no one else was interested. Rebecca 07:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next Melbourne meetup?

I'm going to be in Melbourne during November 18-22. I notice your last meetup was in June, so it would be good to catch up with other Wikipedians during this time if there is any interest? I'll post my exact availability soon (all I know from memory is the Sunday night is out for me!) -- Chuq 00:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll still be in Canberra until sometime in December, so I don't think I'll be able to make it this time around, but I'd be up for a meetup sometime soon. Rebecca 00:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about this just the other day. I've now archived the old discussion, so people can suggest dates, locations etc over at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne. --bainer (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wally Foreman

I'm sorry to report that Wally has just passed away.[5] — Moondyne 08:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a sad day for sports-mad West Aussies. :-( I've listened to that man so much over the years, I've adopted his penchant for the word "golly". He won't be forgotten. Hesperian 11:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coolac massacre

The anon is putting in Coolac massacre info into the Hume Highway (edit|talk|history|links|logs) article with cites that I would say are unreliable. I have obviously been battling this too long. Can someone else please take a look. - see 203.54.9.163 (talk • contribs) and the reference she is citing: http://help.com/post/3296/coolac-massacre/ I don't beleive this meets the criteria under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources - specifically Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. --Golden Wattle ^talk 19:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Kinda like Groundhog Day aint it? :/ I'm with you, the reference fails WP:RS. -- Longhair\^talk 20:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I really like that movie. On the other hand, I don't like this ;-). Lankiveil 23:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

• The information has been placed on the Gundagai, New South Wales (edit|talk|history|links|logs) article too and as I am an involved party in a Request for Arbitration on this matter I do not feel empowered to revert.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted this section, I notice that the source on Usenet has also been deleted. Keep up the good work.--Grahamec 00:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved with the RFC, or indeed this case in the past, I'll watch both articles and remove anything sus that I see being put up. Lankiveil 01:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC).

I probably shouldn't have deleted it as the anonymous user has bad mouthed me in the past, although I'm not involved with the RFC.--Grahamec 02:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

While we're discussing this, is there any verifiable truth to what the editor is claiming happened? I'm no expert on Aboriginal history, but if this massacre is commonly held by those educated on the subject to have occured, writing a well-cited piece in the appropriate article (Coolac, New South Wales, I guess) could go a long way towards defusing the situation. Lankiveil 03:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert either, but if there was a verifiable truth, they'd have linked to it well before now, sparing us the melodrama. -- Longhair\^talk 03:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read some of the early documents/drafts prepared by archaeologists relating to the RTA's application for consents for disturbance of indigenous heritage (note this is not an Environmental Impact Statement - that was finished years ago) for the Coolac Bypass before I prematurely resigned/retired in June. The simple answer is that there is no written evidence, which is not to say that no massacre occurred. Some are hoping that the current exercise will show that there was a massacre. However, this is unlikely because:

• it is unlikely that a massacre would have occured on precisely the route being planned, and this is the only section that is being investigated
• the only hope of finding evidence would be from datable burial sites, but if there were deaths, bodies would more than likely have been buried elsewhere (and not be found by the current investigation) or not have been buried at all (which would mean they would leave no trace).--Grahamec 04:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it enough of a mainstream view that it could reasonably be included though? Some quick Googling doesn't turn up anything for "Coolac Massacre" or "Gundagai Massacre", but I don't really have my finger on the pulse of indigenous politics in this country. If there's a significant minority that do believe it happened, then perhaps we should make a quick mention along the lines of "some believe a massacre occured here".

Basically, I'm just trying to extend the benefit of the doubt to this anon and assume good faith; while she has a lot to learn about civility, I think that Wikipedia as a whole would certainly benefit from more Aboriginal perspective. Lankiveil 08:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

There are apparently no reliable sources on this alleged massacre other than the one (unreliable source) above and references to alleged massacre claims on the ABC news from one resident and discussion about it do not seem to equal that there was a masssacre - very few refs. Please review the arbcom debate before assuming good faith and think about the other editors who ahve ben dealing with this anon: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Workshop and Evidence. Wikipedia will only benefit from verifiable material with no original research. It is sad that there is a lack of material but we can't make it up to produce balance- that is part of the constraint wikipedians operate under.--Golden Wattle ^talk 10:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've spent the best part of thirty minutes looking for anything on this "massacre" that isn't obviously sourced from this one user (their writing style is rather... distinctive), and I've drawn a blank. I think we can definitely relegate her claims to the realm of crankery. Luckily, I haven't seen her about for a couple of days, maybe she's gotten bored. Lankiveil 12:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

At the end of the day (I've looked too), it comes down to what Wikipedia is about - verifiability. If a massacre did occur, that is the realm of academics and anthropologists and historians to discuss, sort out, talk to sources, research the claims, publish, peer review, then we can put it up. There is info I'd dearly like to put into some articles as let's say in some cases there are Government facts and there are facts, and the latter don't get an airing. However, just because I may personally know it to be true doesn't mean I can verify it, and therefore it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 12:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The arbcom has banned the editor for one year see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors and note that enforcement of the ban may explains some edits in the future that to some would otherwise fail to assume good faith --Golden Wattle ^talk 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SMH Article

There is an article on the SMH website here re Wikipedia plagiarism and Daniel Brandt. amitch 23:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The same article appears here in The Age (also run by Fairfax), and appears to have been sourced from AP Digital, which sells its stories for reprint. Cheers --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-30/Plagiarism cleanup also from last week's Signpost. -- Longhair\^talk 00:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote from the Signpost article: So far around 100 articles have been cleaned of plagiarized text, in addition to the 142 originally reported by Brandt.. How amusing that by the time the article appeared in SMH and The Age, the problem no longer existed! (Not copyright problems in general, but the specific complaints) -- Chuq 01:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly a fair contest when dead tree media criticise wikipedia. Andjam 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link between HG Nelson (politician) & HG Nelson (character)?

I've just completed Harold Nelson (Australian politician) (the first federal member for the Northern Territory) and I note that he was always known as "HG Nelson". Is anyone aware whether HG Nelson named himself after Nelson or whether it was a coincidence? --Roisterer 02:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)