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Earlier discussions have been archived at Archive 1 --A Y Arktos\^talk 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)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

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. [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.

I'm giving you one clear warning. Stop wish your personal attacks, or be blocked once again. -- Longhair\^talk 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.

Well this appears to be a prank, it got both indigenous peoples and highways staff.

Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) September 10, 2005 Saturday SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. 16 LENGTH: 276 words HEADLINE: Cropdusting joker could be grounded SOURCE: MATP BODY: A CROPDUSTER pilot who sprayed a group of 19 people with oil in the state's south as a practical joke could be banned from the skies, says the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Decontamination units were called to the scene after the pilot dumped an unknown chemical -- later identified as paraffin oil -- on a group of Aborigines and Roads and Traffic Authority staff earlier this week. The group were looking for sites of indigenous significance in a paddock in Coolac, north of Gundagai, which could form part of the proposed Hume Highway by-pass. The fire brigade's hazardous materials unit was called in to assess the scene and the group underwent emergency decontamination. None have shown ill effects. A spokesman for CASA, which is investigating the pilot's conduct, said he told police he only dumped the oil as a practical joke.

Thatcher131 00:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

OK, I read Bob Carr's blurb. Note he mentions Marie Lindley's claim that the 1852 Flood was Australia's worst natural disasater. It wasnt. So, it can be safely assumed that Bob Carr is reading info someone else has written for him using dubious sources re some stuff.

Bob Carr would not have known the the 1830s Coolac Massacre. He should have known of the Wiradjuri Wars but maybe not specifically to Gundagai.

What is reconcilitation? It seems to be a concept that non Indigenous people sprout a lot, but that many Indigenous people have stated that it isnt their thing, noting they have not conciled to reconcile.

Brody Asimus' story is just that. Bob Carrs sprout might have some merit given he was Premier, but whether the content of what he went on with or not is right, is open to debate.

Remember Carrs sprout was in the context of the centenary of the 1852 Flood, in 2002, that was also about promoting funding for The Old Gundgaai site. The Flood commoration was very linked to making the old site of European Gundagai a tourist attraction and getting the gov funding to do that.

I sort of kyboshed that, via going to the NSW Heritage Office and NSW National Parks and Indigneous leaders. Gundagai doesnt try to establish the Old Gundgaai Site as a tourist attraction these days and 4 years after Bob Carrs speech, we hear next to nil in Gundagai re the 1852 Flood as the whole idea has been dropped and we are now remaking the place as an Irish town rather than an 1852 flood town it seems. Gundagai relabels each 5 years.

Put Carrs blurb in but note it in context, that it is out of date, why Carr was carrying on in parliament re it, etc etc. It all failed despite Bob Carrs input, courtesy of my effort and the resulting assistance from heritage professionals throughout Oz for very very good reasons that are to do with objecting to stuff planned by Gundagai, that was the opposite of reconcilitation and respect for Indigenous culture.

Is reconcilation with Indigenous people to do with wrecking some of their stuff as Gundagai town intended?

It isnt u know so Carrs sprout was inappropriate, but he would not have known.

What is reconcilitation? A political thing? Do non Indigenous people invite Indigenous people to give a Welcome to Country, call that reconcilation, then the week after, bulldoze sacred sites?

Right.

Note Carrs blurb re Gundagai as being connected to promotion of the proposed Old Gundagai Site as a tourist attraction by the ones who were here then with PR skills, and their cohorts, (the committee was run by Marie Lindleys b-i-l who is boss of nsw rural racing these days and a past mayor whose gggrandfather owned a pub here on the Old Gundgaai Site that fed booze to Indigenous people as all the pubs here then did, - recorded in Returns by the Aboriginal Commissioners-, getting them addicted and ill and totally exploitable), so claiming the 1852 flood as a reconcilitation thing gave that project some trumped up credit, but the project was ultimately unfeasible because of other considerations that were way more significant than the 1852 flood or any manufacted to fit, highly outrageous 'Gundagai' reconcilation claims, even if made by the then NSW Premier.

There was numerous close interactions between Indigenous people and Europeans in Australia for many many years pre the 1852 Gundgaai Flood and in locations other than Gundgaai, some being true friendships rather than exploitation. Australia was officially invaded in 1788 so that was 64 years pre the flood.

Gundagai like other places, uses its links to State and Federal pollies to get stuff done. Also its links to other state and national entities that have people who are friends of the town or run by former Gundagai people. This is the world. Whether some of it has much to do with truth though sometimes is debateable. Whatever, there are people who look out for heritage around Oz also that even Bob Carr cant over ride that other people also have links to.

Words are cheap. People can stand up in Parliament or anywhere else for that matter, and sprout anyhting. Whether what is sprouted is correct or not is another issue. Three-quarter truths mixed in with a couple of huge inaccurcies work well also I hear.

Pollies and the meeja dont have a lot of credibility and this topic is pollies and the meeja.

Cradle of Reconcilitation is a huge claim for the town probably least deserving of it, to make.

See below, from 'Review' Sept 2006 Turning Wave Festival,Gundagai. http://www.turningwave.org.au/Reviews.htm. This review was written by John Dengates wife so has credibility.

"The launching of the long awaited CD of John Warner’s ‘Yarri’ did not attract the crowds it deserved in Gundagai ..."

The town wasnt interested. They tried a concert here of it not that long back too, and next to no one went.

Gundagai people DO NOT believe Gundagai was the birthplace of reconcilitation. Howver a couple of PR people used to believe in pushing that line as part of a town promotion/rebadging campaign.

Wattle seemingly believes gundagai was the birthplace of reconcilitation given how that 'editor' will not present the ridiculous reconcilitation claim in a more balanced light. That then makes information on the wik gundagai page, silly and comic like given australias known story from the 1700s on. I gues sif gundagai reconciled in 1852, (got on with Indigenous people) they didn't in 1851 or Sydney didnt in 1780 etc?

I'd like to know also, If Gundgaai is supposedly the cradle of reconcilitation, and that process allegedly commence din 1852, the outcome in tangible terms in 1952 and 2002, was that one of their major majo rplaces, in Oz, was known of by non Indigenosu people, so they planned to bulldoze it.

If Gundagai was so appreciative of Indigenous people from 1852 wouldnt the community have said "OK, here are your special places back and we will assist you to maintain them." Instead, Gundagai did the opposite for the next 150 years recently planning to totally destory some and also, kicking up big time re the Coolac surveys for Indigenous heritage that is ongoing. To help that cultural wrecking, they also supported moving the surviving Indigenous people to places 100s miles away so they would hopefully forget, and bought in out of country people in their place. The Indigenous people walked back home though. They were sent away again. They came home again. In the end they were hunted out of town and put on the mission stations. Some married into non Indigenosu familes but they were not allowed to acknowledge their Indigenous heritage on the threat their children woudl be taken if they did. Even these days in Gundagai there are people with Indigneous heritage too scared to acknowledge it. That is sad. Its OK to be Irish but not Indigenous. Anyone who paints Australia's Indigenous story as other than it is putting out silly cradle of reconcilitation claims, is whitewashing.

From memory, I wrote to Bob Carr re some of his silly reconcilitation Gundagai claim and told him what else was happening here. He didnt reply, but he would know. I think I suggested he talk to the Elgin Marbles expert in Sydney to get filled in, or his own NSW Heritage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.98 (talk • contribs)

• It seems to me that any claim of a place being the "cradle of reconciliation" requires outstanding sources. Surely there must be extensive documentation of the reconiliation movement in Australia, even government web sites, histories; etc. If they don't describe Gungadai as the cradle it would be better off not stating it. If there are no such histories you probably should wait until they are written. As I said in the RFC, the current fashion in U.S. history is to see received history as Euro-centrically biased and to reinterpret and reinvestigate the past from the native point of view (arguably this goes too far in the other direction but that's a problem for a different day). Until such history becomes available for Australia to balance or contrast with the previous history, sensitive claims probably should be treated carefully and with respect toward good sources. Thatcher131 14:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Coolac massacre

Regarding the alleged Coolac massacre I checked LexisNexis news service and found two articles, both relating to the highway delay due to claims that a massacre happened in the area. At this time there seem to be no reliable sources that a massacre did happen (I haven't even seen a firm date). An ABC radio report will not serve as a source for anything unless the transcript is made available, otherwise we would have to rely on the memories of the listeners. The point of having reliable sources is to have something that other people can double-check, even if (in the case of an 1879 newspaper article) the checking would be difficult.

The only place on Wikipedia that the Coolac massacre would currently be noteworthy is in the article Hume highway, where it can be noted that construction of the Coolac bypass has been delayed by claims of an Aboriginal leader that there is a massacre site nearby, and that archeological testing is underway, and the state has agreed to have an archeologist on site during the road work in case anything turns up. Thatcher131 14:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

To the anonymous editor (and the rest)

I'm going to make a note of this here because I don't know if you are likely to see it elsewhere.

I think the intent of your contributions to the article is generally good, in the sense of trying to balance out possible unconscious bias. Claims such as "Gudagai is the cradle of reconciliation" are so sweeping that they do require special attention to sources and if they are controversial, should probably be removed until better sources can be found.

However, your behavior at times is wholly unacceptable. You will not adopt the simple courtesy of signing your posts, so people can know who said it and when; this makes it very hard to follow discussions. You have made repeated personal attacks on other editors (recent comments documented by me at your RFC. You rely on personal knowledge rather than reliable sources. You have inserted argument and personal comments into article text instead of the talk page. (In some cases, other users have copyedited your comments to include them in the text, which shows that they are willing to work with you when possible.) Your recent edits to your RFC were properly reverted because they were in the wrong place, the wrong format, and were headed with a personal attack. While it would have been nice for the other editors to fix them for you, they are under no obligation to do so. Fortunately you found someone else to fix them up for you. If you are willing to cooperate with other editors on sources (as seems to be happening on this talk page) I will unprotect the article. I probably should anyway, since there may be other editors around the world with good ideas or even typos to fix. I do believe I know enough about your IP history to block you specifically if you resume making personal attacks.

Wikipedia is about working together. It is very useful to have editors with different viewpoints working on an article cooperatively. I will no have no hesitation in blocking you at the first sign of renewed personal attacks. Thatcher131 15:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)