User talk:PastelLilac

Hello, PastelLilac, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

The procedure on Wikipedia is that if an editor reverts your contribution and gives a reason, you should go to the article Talk page and discuss the issue and try to seek consensus for your changes. Please see policy on the Bold, revert discuss cycle and consensus.

Thank you Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Clifton Hill Community Music Centre. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits which for the most part improve the article. As for the quote from the newspaper article, if you read the article right through you will see that the author (the editor of the local paper) is referring to the Jerilderie letter which is already discussed in the article. It is therefore one contemporary's opinion of the letter. It is odd that Jones take the quote out of context and removes certain passages. The whole quote is: "The contents of the manuscript in question principally consisted of a long tirade against the ineptitude and untruthfulness of the Victorian police, who were designated '' loafers, scoundrels and black guards '' of the deepest dye. The Victorian Government also came in for its share of vituperation an abuse for employing such men. Kelly called upon all and sundry to be up and resist, and hound down thescoundrels and wipe them off the face of the earth, and so on. Kelly was undoubtedly ambitious, and would seemingly have liked to have been at the head of a hundred followers or so to upset the existing government or bring them to terms. With his ambition there must also have been a lot of the Don Quixote about him. According to him, he, his family and his relations were the persecuted, and the Government and its officers were the persecutors. To judge by reading between the lines of the manuscript which he was so anxious to have published, one would be inclined to think that the leader of the outlaws was also a bit of a lunatic, or rather, a dreamer, in his own way. One might also conclude that he was a desperate man, driven to desperation by his imaginar wrongs, and was then up in arms against the community, with his back to the wall. To sum up the writings, in the writer's opinion the greater portion of them could only be considered by anyone who read them to be little better than emanations ofwild fancies from a disordered brain." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your edits on the Jerilderie letter, I think the account now gives too much weight to Jones's interpretation of the letter. Jones pushes a particular thesis, claiming that Kelly planned a republican rebellion in Victoria and that the Jerilderie letter was a warning of this. The majority of scholars consider this nothing but wishful thinking on Jones' part, unbacked by evidence. Dawson and others point out that the vast majority of the letter consists of a rant against Fitzpatrick and other Irishmen who support the police and lurid descriptions of the murders Kelly will inflict on his enemies. The threatened "colonial stratagem" doesn't relate to his evocation of an Irish Rebellion but to his plan to punish the police for their harrassment of his family and the arrest of those involved in the Whitty larceny. If you read the relevant passage in context you will see that the "suffering innocence" [he means "innocents"] are his family and associates who have been targeted by the police, not the rural poor oppressed by the squatters and the state or Irish Australians in general.

I can see why you wanted a direct quote from the letter which alludes to the later plan to attack a police train, but I think the current discussion of the letter doesn't convey the extent to which it is "an escalating promise of revenge and retribution" for the alleged injustices inflicted on Kelly and his family by his arch enemy Fitzpatrick. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, should be "invokes". I missed the reference to ther violent tone in the following paragraph. Looks good now. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have slightly rewritten the ambush of Kennedy and Scanlon to make it consistent with the two different accounts in Macfarlane and Jones. Macfarlane's version is based on McIntyre's contemporary police reports and inquest statements. Jones's version is based on McIntyre's memoirs written twenty years later. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aemilius Adolphin: All good. I was wondering if you'd like to have a crack at the Fitzpatrick incident section? I'm sure you'll agree it's in a sorry state. It could probably be adequately summarised in a few paragraphs. I think the subsections should be cut entirely. - PastelLilac (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs to be completely rewritten and condensed. To tell the truth, the task of trying to untangle the Fitzpatrick mess isn't very appealing but I will have a look at it on the weekend. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aemilius Adolphin: Thanks. I'm going to chip away at it. Hopefully helps make things easier. - PastelLilac (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued work on this, you have improved the article immensely. I haven't been able to face Fitzpatrick yet, but I think you have already improved the section. I have removed your additions to political legacy because contemporary newspapers are primary sources and shouldn't be used as an editorial intervention in a debate. As for the Basu book, is it talking about cultural depictions of Kelly and therefore should go in the cultural depictions section. However, we need to summarise the book's argument fairly and therfore shouldn't just select one type of cultural depiction. As I understand it, the book argues that cultural depictions of Kelly varied over time and tended to reflect political concerns of the moment. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aemilius Adolphin: There should be something on how Kelly has been co-opted by different groups across the spectrum, to serve different agendas. Most notably, socialists / labor activists using him as a symbol of class struggle, and nationalists using his image to promote Australian identity. As for cultural depictions, they have been used as tools to promote said agendas and are therefore worth mentioning in this section too (not specific examples). IMO there should also be a line on contemporary interpretations of Kelly's popularity as a sign of discontent among the working/underclass and a possible broader revolt. More than enough journalists and authority figures at the time expressed this view. We have the cartoon of Kelly dancing around a communist flag, and then no relevant corresponding text that gives some idea of the societal attitudes and fears that gave rise to it. I think the Brisbane article does this adequately. There's probably a better way of wording it, to get across that it's a subjective historical perspective. BTW there is no policy that forbids citing old newspapers. We have a template for citing Trove specifically. Citing an old newspaper isn't OR as long as a neutral point of view is maintained and the journalist's opinion is not framed as fact. The paper in question is also of course a major one. - PastelLilac (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"There should be something on how Kelly has been co-opted by different groups across the spectrum, to serve different agendas." The problem is that this is a vast topic which would need to be adequately covered from a NPOV. There are already sections on the Kelly myth, cultural representations and Kelly's status as a social rebel. If you want to develop a section on how specific groups have manipulated Kelly to further specific political agendas, be my guest. But selecting one newspaper article and one quote from one book does not do the topic justice and arguably makes the article worse. I never said that citing old newspapers is forbidden. But policy specifically states that for historical articles secondary sources from academic sources are preferred. And statements such as: "In Kelly's day, the level of public support he received in Victoria was described as indicative of a "socialistic revolt of class against class" in the colony" and basing this on one primary source is the epitome of original research. It also raises questions of NPOV because it serves as an intevention in a scholarly debate about Kelly. I am sure that if I looked hard enough I could find a contemporary newspaper depicting Kelly as a drunken Irish lout but it wouldn't be right to generalise from this. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]