Talk:Gundagai

Earlier discussions have been archived at Archive 1 --A Y Arktos\^talk 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)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 Wikipedia 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\^talk 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\^talk 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 Wikipedia:Etiquette--A Y Arktos\^talk 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 Wikipedia text is largely from the creation of the article in September 2004.[1]

Easiest comparison to my mind is probably by table:

Wikipedia

Walkabout and SMH Travel - identical

The gold mining made the town prosperous, a centre for bushrangers, and gave the town a romantic bush appeal that resulted in Gundagai becoming a byword for outback town in Australia. Evidence of this can be seen via the number of stories, songs and poems that reference Gundagai. These include the Jack O'Hagan composed songs Where the Dog Sits on the Tuckerbox (five miles from Gundagai), Along the Road to Gundagai and When a Boy from Alabama Meets a Girl from Gundagai, as well as Banjo Patterson's The Road to Gundagai and the traditional ballad Flash Jack from Gundagai. Additionally, the town is mentioned in Henry Lawson's Scots of the Riverina and C.J. Dennis' The Traveller.

Perhaps more than any other Australian town, Gundagai has proved an irresistible subject with writers of popular verse. This perhaps relates to the fact that Five Mile Creek, to the north of town, was a popular meeting place with teamsters, drovers, shearers and bush travellers. The famous story of the Dog on the Tuckerbox is discussed in Things to See. 'Lazy Harry', 'On the Road to Gundagai' and 'Flash Jack from Gundagai' are three anonymous poems relating to the town. The latter two were first published in 'Banjo' Paterson's Old Bush Songs (1905). Paterson himself also wrote a ballad called 'The Road to Gundagai'. Capitalising on this tradition, Jack O'Hagan, who had never been to Gundagai, wrote the nostalgic and highly sentimental song 'Along the Road to Gundagai' which, in 1922, became an international success and the signature tune for the popular radio show 'Dad and Dave'. Knowing a good thing when he felt it in his wallet, O'Hagan later wrote 'Where the Dog Sits on the Tuckerbox' and 'When a Boy from Alabama Meets a Girl from Gundagai'. The hero of Henry Lawson's 'Scots of the Riverina' also has a farm 'by Gundagai' wile C.J. Dennis mentions the town in 'The Traveller'.

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\^talk 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,[2] [3] she didn't seem inclined to respond to this discussion point, despite making the allegation in the first place.--A Y Arktos\^talk 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\^talk 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.

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. [4] 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 [5] [6] [7]. 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\^talk 09:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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.