Talk:Ned Kelly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Australia / Crime (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Ned Kelly 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Another song for the list[edit]

The 1983 album Fridge in the fast lane by the band Cluster of Nuts has a song called "Ned Kelly's Letter", which is essentially a Celtic-rock version of Ned Kelly's Cameron letter. (

This is about Ned Kelly —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

One more song might be about him "Don't Fence Me In" by Cole Porter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Jerilderie Letters[edit]


Kev 20-10-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

smjm 8Sept2011: Outdated url above. Letters can now be found at (but a link to the wikipedia page on the letters would probably be more appropriate to this page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

32,434 Sign to Save Ned[edit]

RachelandBronwen has requested: please replace last line of Capture Trial and Execution by the following quotation from the Argus Newspaper of the day

32,434 Sign to Save Ned

[as reported in The Argus newspaper 9/11/1880] “[William] Gaunson [solicitor and politician, and member, Reprieve Committee] and the Kelly sisters were admitted to a retiring room, and the former handed Captain Le Patourel [secretary to the governor] the petitions he had been getting signed for presentation to the Governor, stating that they contained 32,434 signatures. “An examination of the petitions showed that they were signed principally in pencil, and by illiterate people, whilst whole pages were evidently written by one person. “The Executive of course determined to adhere to their decision—that the convict shall be executed on Thursday morning. This having been communicated to the prisoner's relatives they left, and returned to the Robert Burns Hotel. They were accompanied, as before, by a crowd and during the whole afternoon and evening the hotel was rushed. Immediately after their return James Kelly addressed the crowd, from the door, and told them that 'it was not all over yet'—a remark that was loudly cheered.”

I'll leave RachelandBronwen's suggestion open to a discussion here. Josh Parris 05:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


Would it be entirely inaccurate to call Ned Kelly a terrorist?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A significant factor would be that Wikipedia frowns upon the use of the word terrorist simply because of its loaded nature. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

New External Link added[edit]

I moderate the Culture Victoria website and have added an external link to our story "Ned Kelly" which also includes a video interview with Peter Carey about his novel "True History of the Kelly Gang".Eleworth (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ned Kelly as Robin Hood?[edit]

Australian opposition leader Tony Abbott has called some recent government tax breaks "Ned Kelly taxes". Likewise, a google search for "ned kelly robin hood" brings up a few claims that mostly seems to be unsubstantiated, that the Kellys robbed from the rich (mostly banks, so I guess that part is true), and gave to the poor. Is there any evidence for this? Would make a good subsection somewhere, perhaps, if there is. --naught101 (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It would all depend who you asked. Some see Ned as nothing more than an evil, police killing criminal, others see him as a persecuted member of the Irish Catholic and rural community. He certainly had a lot of friends right to the end, and the usual sharing among friends would have occurred with whatever spoils Kelly gained. He certainly didn't use them to live the high life. HiLo48 (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Another Literary Referance[edit]

The satirical fantasy novel 'The Last Continent' by Terry Pratchett contains several references to a legendary outlaw called 'Tinhead Ned' who would appear to be based on Ned Kelly.

Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Game as Ned Kelly?[edit]

I don't think a footnote from 1976 demonstrates this to be a common expression. I doubt I hear it once a decade.

Edit request from JMCBok, 23 July 2011[edit]

The opening scene in the movie The Devil's Rejects has the family garbed in Kelly-gang type armor. I was hoping somebody could add that bit to the portion with the rest of the film influence paragraph.

JMCBok (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is British Empire shown as part of his places of birth and death?[edit]

And in an illogical order too? HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Identification of Ned's remains[edit]

As I'm not yet entitled to edit the page, I thought it might be helpful to let everyone know that, as reported on the BBC News website, Ned's remains (or at least the majority of them) have now been identified:


Bryn YorkshireBryn (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for highlighting this. Naturally it's all over the news here in Victoria, Australia. If nobody else tackles it I'll have a go at adding something in a few hours time. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't edit, either, but the main page says Kelly's remains were identified in "August" 2011. The announcement was made yesterday, September 1. Small but important fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Selector/Squatter explanation?[edit]

The doesn't repeatedly mentions "selectors", "squatters", the "selector-squatter conflicts", and (presumably related) "Victoria's Land Selection Acts". But it doesn't explain these terms, or give any link to an article explaining them. Could someone provide this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ad mentioned[edit]

Can be found here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


Does any Ned Kelly's relative live today ( or lived in this century )? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Istorrikas (talkcontribs) 09:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely "first degree murder" cannot be correct.[edit]

I suspect that it is inaccurate to say that Ned was charged with "first degree murder". I'm not aware of any divisions of murder into degrees in either Australia or Britain at any time.

The Law Report's transcript of a theatrical reconstruction of the trial, makes no use of "first" or "degree" as adjectives for murder. The Trial of Ned Kelly, and this would be in keeping with my (inexpert) understanding that the most serious crime involving killing someone in Australia is murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinGrant (talkcontribs) 13:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm changing to "Willful Murder" based on this page: RobinGrant (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The introduction now states "capital murder" and links to a page describing Acts enabled in Great Britain in 1957 and 1966. While Great Britain is undoubtedly the jurisdiction in which Ned Kelly was charged, he couldn't have been charged with an offence written into law some 77 years after his death. RedDubh (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Rise to notoriety of "Ah Fook"[edit]

The section of "Rise to notoriety" contains references to an individual "Ah Fook" and this is clearly some form of joke made by some contributor. The "reference" given leads to a webpage with a picture of a closely related "Ah Choo". please consider removing if no other evidence of Ah Fook's existence can be located. (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a clever joke, it seems. It's gone, but hopefully not forgotten. Thanks for picking it up. HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I've replaced the Ah Fook incident with a very reliable reference and expanded it considerably as it is very relevant regarding police views of Ned. Wayne (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hare's Suspension?[edit]

The article states; "For his cowardice the Royal Commission later suspended Hare from the Victorian Police Force." listing a secondary source for support. The primary source clearly contradicts this statement. "Royal Commission into the Kelly Outbreak" stated in its Second Progress Report:

"That Superintendent Hare's services in the police force have been praiseworthy and creditable, but nothing special has been shown in his actions that would warrant the Commission in recommending his retention in the force, more especially when the fact is so patent that the "strained relations" between himself and Mr. Nicolson have had such a damaging influence on the effectiveness of the service. This feeling is not likely to be mitigated after what has transpired in the evidence taken before the Commission; and we would therefore recommend that Superintendent Hare be allowed to retire from the force, as though he had attained the age of 55 years, and that, owing to the wound he sustained at Glenrowan, he receive an additional allowance of 100 pounds per annum, under clause 29 of the Police Statute (No. 476)."

This hardly sound like suspension for cowardice. Further statements by the Commission make it clear that personal disputes between Hare and another officer (Nicholson) were the cause of so much internal dissention that they both needed to be discharged. Fractious they may have been, but not cowards. Both were reinstated in their former positions by Cabinet action, pending their appointment to the higher position of stipendiary police magistrates (district judges), which was forthcoming for both.

As to Hare's "slight injury" and fleeing from the battlefield, the Wanganui Herald reported:

"In connection with the Kelly gang extermination, we regret to learn that Superintendent Hare has suffered very much from the wound he received in his arm. Lately the symptoms are very unfavourable, the splints and shattered bones not all having come away, and fears were entertained that the hand would have to be amputated! A consultation was held by Drs Youl, Ryan and Fitzgerald, who determined to perform an operation. The arm was cut open, numerous pieces of bone and splints were removed, the shattered bones were chiselled smoothly, and any destroyed bones also removed. All the bones of the arm were found to be shattered by the rifle ball, which entered on the outside and passed slanting right through the bones and flesh. Hopes are now entertained that the hand will not have to be amputated."

His recovery was long, as erysipelas had set in. Since Hare's eventual retirement from the force was accompanied by a disability allowance of 100 pounds a year, it would seem to have been much, much more than merely a 'slight wound'.

It might prove more responsible to include a link to the Commission's actual report, than to rely on interpretations by secondary sources having obvious bias. (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Victims Killed or Wounded by the Kelly Gang[edit]

In the table detailing the victims of the Kelly Gang, Constable Lonigan is listed as Constable Lonergan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed typo.David.moreno72 (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to tidy up the List of "Victims Killed or Wounded by the Kelly Gang" since a few of the names including the Jones were shot in the shoot-out at Glenrowan accidentally according to material i've read - probably not by the Kelly gang either since Mrs Jones was later charged with helping the Kelly gang (and got off). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This section is currently named "List of people killed or wounded" which is very unclear. Killed or wounded by whom? As this page is named "Ned Kelly" it infers that they were all killed or wounded by Ned Kelly. Subsequently, have added "Explanatory comments" to table list, as the entries on the list lack meaning without context. Section should be renamed. Perhaps "List of people killed or wounded during the Kelly Outbreak"? Australia1788 (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Fixed.--Aichik (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Irish Australian?[edit]

Kelly was neither Irish nor Australian. He was of Irish descent, and neither Australia or Ireland existed as countries at that time. The correct terminology would be to call him British or Victorian, or if neither of these is acceptable, not to use nationality at all. Suggested opening sentence: "Edward "Ned" Kelly (June 1854 or 1855 – 11 November 1880) was a bushranger who operated in the area of the present-day Australian state of Victoria." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC) And in the box, his place of birth is listed as "Australia", which is blatantly incorrect, unless we're listing continents now.

You're technically correct about the status of the two countries at the time, but Kelly's Irishness is an essential part of his story and cannot be omitted. HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not omitting his Irishness, it's mentioned in the rest of the article, so could you make the edit to the opening sentence and place of birth and death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

He's definitely not Australian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you are all being too literal. Check out the intro text to the featured article on Australia:

For at least 40,000 years before the first British settlement in the late 18th century, Australia was inhabited by indigenous Australians, who spoke languages grouped into roughly 250 language groups. After the European discovery of the continent by Dutch explorers in 1606, Australia's eastern half was claimed by Great Britain in 1770 and initially settled through penal transportation to the colony of New South Wales from 26 January 1788.

Australia here means "what eventually became Australia." We can use that too. But I see your points about the usage of modern ethnic terms and will make an adjustment. Not touching the description of his mother though, as I think the reader gets it by that point.--Aichik (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


[From my talk page with responses inline]

In the Ned Kelly armour section, you have a syntax error for a conversion.


....For instance, the in the Jerilderie letter, it you seem to have confused the two letters.

I can't see what this refers to. I think my edits were minor. Please clarify.

In the Aaron Sherrit section, you got rid of the famous bit of the policemen hiding under the bed, and you got rid of "You must be drunk, Anton. You know that it's over that way,'.


In another section, you got rid of the very famous act when Curnow convinced Ned to let him go.


You also got rid of 'the outlaw howled like a wild beast brought to bay, and swore at the police' Again, very famous.


You also got rid of what happened to Martin Cherry,

Not really-he died-but I restored some detail.

Then you got rid of ' that they must have killed one another'. This is incredible crucial, and the subject of much controversy..


You also got rid of 'After Ned Kelly's capture there was considerable debate over having the armour destroyed,' That is not copy editong, it now starting to become vandalism.

Restored, but really, why would a non-fan care without at least a rehearsal of the two sides' arguments? Also, "vandalism"? Get over yourself.

Then you made a change which reslted in 'Two stolen circular saws iron tacks were tried'. Circular saws and iron tacks are two different things.

Typo. Fixed.

Also plough shares and mould boards are two different things.

I think that remained clear, but I tweaked it. The armour section remains confusing because it ends with a newspaper report which contradicts what came before, using an unrelated stream of evidence.

You have certainly made a mess of the page of one of the most well known Australians. Could you please improve the page in response to the errors which I have highlighted. Once that is done, I will then highlight the other numerous errors which you have caused.

Go for it! Also, this article is way too long. Please consider splitting it so that a casual reader can get the basics without such a big time investment. Lfstevens (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Round 2[edit]

What I would like to clarify though is the Jerilderie Letter. I think there needs to be clarification that Ned is famous for two separate letters. The first one was posted to Mr Donald Cameron on 16 Dec 1878. The second, and more famous is the Jerilderie letter, given to Ms Gill on 9 Feb 1879. To make it easier, I suggest that 'Excerpts of the Jerilderie letter given to Ms Gill on 9 Feb 1879' instead of 'Excerpts of the second letter '.

I leave these changes, which my edits didn't affect, to a more knowledgeable editor.

Also, when the police arrived at Glenrowan, they travelled in two trains, a pilot train with a policeman strapped to the front, and the main train, which carried the bulk of passengers, so the term 'trains' needs to be used.

Trains. right.

Also could you put back that Byrne's body was secretly buried by police.


Also, could you put pack the heading of Kelly's statement, as now the statement is missing who said it.


Also, you state that 'armour section remains confusing'. This is all part of the Kelly legend, where fact and fiction have become intertwined, so the many facets of the story needs to be revealed, even if they contradict.

Yes, but the contradication should be acknowledged, not merely included. Again I leave this to a more knowledgeable contributor.

This is partly why the article is so long. He killed 3 police, held up two towns and stole from their banks, and then went down in a final siege with homemade armour. When the Kelly gang was in the area, entire towns would shut down in a 'perfect panic'. FYI, I have been to the actual site of the Glenrowan Inn, which is now just a vacant lot.

The article isn't long because he's famous. It's that way because it includes too much detail for a main article. The detail, e.g., how the armour was constructed, should be factored into separate articles. Australians have every right to ensure that all the details are in the record, but a casual reader is not interested in how many trains there were or whether a minor participant did or didn't say something comical. The one part of the article that warrants more content is that about Kelly's legacy and the extent to which his actions reflect larger historical forces that echo down the years, rather than his individual characteristics. All the more reason to factor the details...
Lfstevens (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article is far too long. Ben Finn (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I know very little of Ned Kelly. I only came to here to read about him after watching the movie. As an outsider, I can tell you that this article need serious technical editing and revision. It is almost unreadable in places. The prose is dense and awkward. It almost needs to be re-written from scratch. The article is far too long. It is more important to tell the narrative of Ned Kelly, than to bombard the reader with every single fact related to him. The story of Ned Kelly's life, which is compelling, is very much obscured by this article. I realize that many of you are passionate about the subject, but preventing copy editing has profoundly detracted from the subject matter.CaperBill (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2012[edit]

The word 'mitochondrial' is incorrectly spelled mitochonrial.

This can be found underneath the 'Historical and forensic investigation of remains' heading.

Danielyoung88 (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Censored profanity[edit]

What's up with the censorship of vulgar words in this article? I'm all for civilized language, but I believe showing the actual words used by these historic figures provides a more complete image of them. Also, as someone who's interested in language in general I'm curious what swear words were used in those times. Censorship in quotations doesn't seem to be the norm on Wikipedia (I could be wrong about that). Is there a "official" policy regarding this? Couldn't find anything in the Help section. Zonder (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that the censoring is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not censored. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree than censoring is inappropriate, but in this instance, it is a different case. Most of the censored transcripts come from court procedures or interviews that were then printed in the newspapers of the time. It was illegal at the time to print swear words, but they were allowed to print a dash in place of the swear word. If anyone is able to retrieve the original documents, I'm sure that we would all be very interested. David.moreno72 (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, it hadn't crossed my mind that the source documents probably are censored. Makes sense. Zonder (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There are sources that have accessed the original court documents, like JJ Kenneally, that give hints to what some of these words were (but as it fit the mores of their time, still somewhat censored). Let's try to use those when we can.--Aichik (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Red or John?[edit]

I'm making the assumption that his father was called John and nicknamed Red, but the article seems to use the two names interchangably without explaination. I'm not going to change it as I don't know that my assumption is correct, but could someone who does know clarify? Talltim (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

   Fixed David.moreno72 (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


I notice that some facts are inconsistant "Hostage Martin Cherry was found dying..." "...He seems to have been shot by the attacking force"

However a couple of sections later "List of victims killed or wounded by the Kelly Gang" claims that Martin Cherry was shot dead194.74.237.82

(talk) 09:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Family details[edit]

The sentence "When Red Kelly died he was survived by his wife and seven offspring, Ned and Dan, James, Mrs Gunn, Mrs Skillion, Kate and Grace." is anachronistic and confusing for readers not already acquainted with the story. Neither Annie nor Maggie were married at the time Red died. Also, I'm pretty sure 'children' is a more neutral term than 'offspring'.

RedDubh (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


The article could say something about Ned's father to provide the link back to Ireland. After talking with local people in Ireland, I was told Ned's father was John "Red" Kelly, born in Moyglass, Fethard. He was sentence to 7 years in Van Diemens Land after stealing two pigs. He was given the nickname "Red" because there were two John Kellys on the ship but he had red hair. The local priest apparently doctored the parish registers in order to remove the association with Ned. TonyP (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


Ned Kelly did not die on the cross with his sash, the docter took it and was found in a basement — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

? HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2012[edit]

The list of alleged victims is clearly wrong or at least displays bias. Citing some amateur historical society doesn't cover the point that deaths inside the Pub during the siege were clearly caused by the Police firing indiscriminately into the building. So how were people like Jones a 'victim' of the Kelly Gang? Unless its intended that this be a moral judgement about Kelly's culpability for everything that was done because 'he started it' or because he opposed the Police who were 'only doing there job'?

Jimbow65 (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And what do you actually want changed? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 14:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the heading to remove the bias. It now also matches the title in the original newspaper report. David.moreno72 (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

edit request burial[edit]

i am a noob when it comes to using wiki, to many options and to weird a coding language for my liking. give me HTML anyday. anyway new details as to his burial

worth adding to page as a final chapter in the story? (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a sensible inclusion and conclusion. That article seems a little speculative, but I heard a descendant of Ned's sister discussing it on radio this morning. It's definitely happening. Let's try to find a reliable source after the event, and use that to help create an addition. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is a lot more detail.
"Kelly will be buried at Greta, near Glenrowan in north-east Victoria, where his mother Ellen lies in an unmarked grave. A memorial service will be held on Friday, with the burial on Sunday."
But I still recommend waiting until after the event. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2013[edit]

An addition for the "External Links" section:

Kheldar633 (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. There's already an IMDB link in the article about the movie. RudolfRed (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2013[edit]

"Sub-Inspecter" should be spelled "Sub-Inspector" as it is a few lines below the wrong spelling instance CarloA (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Corrected - thanks for pointing this out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2013[edit]

Gaol is spealt incorrectly through out the article. The american bastardised spelling is used throughout with the exception of the "old Melbourne Gaol" Gaol not Jail.

Pskelly88 (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit inaccurate to say that "jail" is used throughout the article. I can only find one instance of it, in third paragraph of the lead. I personally agree with you that it should be "gaol" for this article. That's certainly how Kelly's gaolers would have spelt it. I'll change it. Don't think it will offend anyone too much. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Closing request as requested edits have been made already. -- TOW  07:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


Dan then said, trying to trick Fitzpatrick "Here he (Ned) is coming along." While he was pretending to look out of the window for Ned, Dan cornered Fitzpatrick, took the revolver and claimed that he had released Fitzpatrick unharmed. Kelly denied that Fitzpatrick could have tried to take liberties with his sister she would not have stood for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


Emphasise needs to be changed to emphasize at the end of the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Uralla or Urana[edit]

The first paragraph of the Jerilderie section of this article mentions the NSW town of Uralla on a couple of occasions. Uralla is indeed a town in NSW, about 1000km from Jerilderie. I assume that the town in this article should be Urana, NSW, which is in the same geographical area as Jerilderie, Wagga Wagga, and Rutherglen. Urana is mentioned several paragraphs further on in this section. I suggest references to Uralla should be changed to Urana. Njb1969 (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Though that sounds plausible, it is original research. Having said that, there isn't any source cited for Uralla. The paragraph in question was added by User:David.moreno72 back in 2012 [1] - I'll leave a note on his talk page, asking for comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It is NOT original research. In the supplied reference, it stated quite clearly that it was Uralla. During that period, the Kelly gang operated throughout NSW, robbing people.

Here is another reference in two other different papers of the same article stating that it was Uralla, and not Urana, so it was unlikely a typo.

And here is a slightly unrelated article mentioning the area.

If you have a reference which states that it was Urana that the Kelly Gang went to on their wild goose chase after Sullivan, only then would you be able to change it to Urana. David.moreno72 (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you know the geography of Vic/NSW, you'll realise how ridiculous it is to suggest that they went from Rutherglen to Uralla to Wagga Wagga. That is a 2,000km journey and a route from Rutherglen to Urana to Wagga Wagga is 200km and not much of a diversion from the most direct route between those two towns. The article in question being quoted from the newspaper sources above which mention Uralla were published almost 10 years after Ned Kelly was hung. That column appears to be a story based on an account of the events of the day, but I think should hardly be regarded as a source of encyclopedic truth. Even the title of the article is "TALE" which should be a hint. The author was supposedly from Coonamble, which is about 750km from Rutherglen (but, coincidentally, closer to Uralla). Assuming that a story published a decade later with no corroborating evidence as factual until proven otherwise is silly. Surely the onus should be on corroborating the story mentioning Uralla, not the other way around. Perhaps the whole story of the wild goose chase should be removed from this article as it appears to be just a single version of events published anonymously for entertainment not historical purposes. Njb1969 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


Before this article bloats even further, I think a trend in referencing needs to be discussed. Having used Trove to research Tom Wills – my pet project on Wiki – I realised it's best to avoid citing old newspapers, because each article nearly always gets something wrong – sometimes a lot wrong. It takes a trained historian to sort through all these competing versions of reality to find out what actually happened, or what probably happened. So I think the most thoroughly researched histories of Ned should be used as references instead. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

May I refer you to this

which states ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). " and has a link to this page

which links to the NLA Trove archive.

So using the NLA Trove archive is within the Wikipedia RS policy. That you disagree with this policy is your prerogative, but to now try and impose your own policy is inappropriate.

Yes, there are errors within the Trove archive, but by using multiple sources, those errors can be minimised. There is also plenty of reliable evidence available when the newspapers reported court cases, and there is also the evidence from the Royal Commission, both of which can be used to cross-reference. The most famous Kelly author, J. J. Kenneally, was a school teacher and not a trained historian, and neither was Ian Jones, who was a TV writer. (Both of which are used as citations, so there is a precedent for using non-trained historians)

So which part of the Ned Kelly page do you think is 'wrong' or 'a lot wrong'? You need to be more specific. David.moreno72 (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going by my experience researching Tom. Using Trove, I could easily construct a biography of Tom that gets everything wrong. That's harder to do using a well-researched biography. There are countless sources in the Trove archive that repeat the same falsehoods about Tom's life, and statements he made can be misquoted in ten or more different ways. Ned's life has been distorted, embellished and mythologised to a far greater extent, perhaps more than any other Australian. For this reason I would trust modern biographies that take a severe academic approach over the more haphazard and unpredictable Trove archive. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but using Trove is within the Wikipedia policy. You are now suggesting to impose your own rules and write your one policy. That is unacceptable. If you don't like Wikipedia policy, than this is not the proper place to discuss it. You still haven't answered my question. Which part of the Ned Kelly page is wrong? David.moreno72 (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I only said it's easy to get stuff wrong with the approach you're taking, especially given how quote-heavy the article is. Sometimes it reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Many of the quotes are from court room witness statements, such as at the trial of Ned Kelly, and the subsequent Royal Commission. If you believe that those involved committed perjury, or the newspapers changed said testimony, then provide the evidence. I also notice that on the Tom Willis page, it references heavily a book by Greg De Moore, who is a doctor of Philosophy. (Not a doctor of History). And what does he use as references? Yep, old newspapers. All I was doing was providing references (following Wikipedia policy) where a 'citation required' tag was introduced, even though it was already referenced. Why someone would introduce citation required tags on something that is already referenced, well I can't answer that, but if they think that to improve the article that it is required, I'm not one to argue. I'm just trying to improve the article and where a citation required tag has been added, provide a citation within the policy of Wikipedia. If you wish to also improve the article with text from published books or from old newspaper articles, both of which are within Wikipedia policy, then by all means, go ahead. But I'm certainly not going to impose my own policy onto you, or anyone else for that matter. If of course any changes are in violation of Wikipedia policy, or don't correctly represent the reference, then of course, it will be reverted.David.moreno72 (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think given the call for additional citations (Aug 2012), the use of original newspaper articles through Trove is quite appropriate. I'm inclined to the view that this article is especially vulnerable to contemporary mythmaking - thus the more bedded-down in sources it is, the better. Of course there are some great books on Ned Kelly - and many are appropriately cited at the bottom of the page. One of the great things about WP is one can see the references and follow them quickly if one wants - online and in books.Nickm57 (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Why repeat the efforts of researchers who have already combed the archive? I haven't seen a featured article that deals with archival evidence in this way. It's more convenient for all if well-researched secondary sources are used instead. Yes, old newspapers are essential in tracking any historical person's life, but like I said, they are prone to error. It takes the dedicated efforts of one or more persons to look at all the evidence and then expunge what doesn't stack up to reality. A lot of modern mythmaking around characters like Tom and Ned is derived from shoddy reports in old newspapers. Tom didn't lose his entire family in the Cullin-la-Ringo massacre, but, amidst the confusion, enough newspapers claimed so that it's been repeated as fact down the years. If you used a modern biography, like Greg's, and not Trove, you wouldn't be susceptible to repeating this error. I don't know enough about Ned to start making contributions to the article, but I do think it's getting out of hand. There's too much detail. Removing "Steele's description" would be a start. Stuff like this shouldn't be reproduced wholesale, but interwoven in an appropriate section. All those subsections could be condensed into a section titled "Last stand at Glenrowan" or something. "Killings at Stringybark Creek" could be condensed into two or three paragraphs. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the paras you mention certainly would benefit by editing - so why not try? And where you come across "shoddy reports from old newspapers" - you should remove them. However, so far, although you've expressed a lack of confidence in C19th newspaper accounts as a WP source, you haven't identified any resulting errors on this page. Nickm57 (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2014[edit]

Sentences need to make more sense (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Such as? This request will be rejected unless you put specifically what you would like to see changed and what you want it changed to. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014[edit]

SuppyCraft (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014[edit]

Ned Kelly was 26 when he died , not 25 as is listed

Siofanoz (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Thanks for pointing that out - with no actual day for his birth these calculations are done manually not automatically - Arjayay (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014[edit]

change Superintendent Nicolas to Superintendent Nicolson. And change Nicolas to Nicolson. Source: Check any history book. Superintendent Nicolson is also my Great Great Grandfather. Jngibbs (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - I did "check any history book" - I checked two, which both state that a "Superintendent Nicolas" and a "Superintendent Nicolson" were both on the case.
This book ("Ned Kelly: A short life" by Ian Jones) specifically states that Superintendent Nicolas was "taken into the confidence of Hare and Nicolson" so it is clearly not a typo, as one is specifically referring to the other.
Moreover, the incident referring to Nicolas in our article also refers to Nicolas, not Nicolson, in that book. - Arjayay (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)