I reverted your recent changes to the lead and returned to what was the stable version. I did this because in the recent past there was an edit war which could have led to to an infinite regress regarding the cause of Cook's death: viz Cook was killed while trying to kidnap the native king as ransom for return of a longboat which was taken as revenge for the theft of wood from a sacred temple which was taken because the native priest might had given permission, which might have been a ruse to entrap Cook...etc.
I think the lead is as good as it will get on this point. I also reverted a change which has Cook a the forefront of colonialism. Which is nonsense but I didn't notice it before. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aemilius Adolphin Hi, cheers for letting me know. I wrote some of this section some time back and have somewhat wanted to revisit it. I was glad to see the changes that have been made but felt the addition of some context could be of assistance, so long as it was made clear the dispute over the boat was not the beginning but rather the culmination of tensions which led to Cook's killing. I also wished to seperate certain clauses which were clumsily connected by me ages ago, which I feel is more objective (MOS:EDITORIAL). I have just re-done the latter component as it doesn't seem to be a subject of your objection. I have also further changed the sentence slightly to read "There is controversy over Cook's role as an enabler of British colonialism and the violence associated with some of his contacts with indigenous peoples." I think it would be remiss to suggest his contacts uniformly ended in violence. thorpewilliam (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a prophet! "Sometimes" has been challenged. The issue now is whether Cook's encounters with Indigenous people were more often or not violent. Another issue will be the cause of the violence. We might have to trace this back to Venetian ship builders. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Sarah Wentworth
On 15 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sarah Wentworth, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sarah Cox brought the first breach of promise suit in Australia, during which she was represented by her future husband William Wentworth? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Wentworth. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sarah Wentworth), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@BuidheHi, I don't understand precisely what you are suggesting is original research. The source I provided deals specifically with the allegation that biological warfare was used against Aboriginal Australians, from both the writer who put it forth and from a different historian offering a response to this. It is published by the ABC which certainly meets reliability guidelines. At present the article states "infectious disease including the use of disease as biological warfare" – this is not academic consensus. If biological warfare is to be mentioned it should be made clear this is a minority contention rather than established historical fact; it shouldn't be mentioned in the same manner as the frontier wars and the deaths caused by inadvertent disease spread. It is better to remove the assertion than treat it as fact, but I was attempting to do neither. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about settler colonialism not Australian history, so the sources that we need to consult for the article are about settler colonialism. Personally, I would argue that the article goes into too much detail on individual cases, but the text on Australia shouldn't be attempting to summarize Australian history but rather explain how settler colonialism applies to Australia. when I searched Google Scholar for sources about settler colonialism in Australia as it relates to introduced disease I found some potentially useful sources particularly this one that summarizes the debate. (t · c) buidhe15:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe Understood. I would be for such debate being mentioned in the article using appropriate sources. I appreciate that the core subject of the article is not Australian history but regardless I believe that to whatever extent it goes into detail on individual cases it should do so accurately. I have no particular opinion on what the correct amount of detail is. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wentworth and Australia article
Hello there
I reverted your edit because it is controversial to say the least and doesn't really belong in a short summary of Australia's history in a general article about Australia. According to the sources you cited Wentworth wasn't a democrat and many would say that he tried his best to prevent truly democratic institutions from developing. But this is an argument for the article about Wentworth.
Hi @Aemilius Adolphin, he was involved in the establishment of trial by jury, the free press and the NSW parliament (Australia’s first), as well as other institutions including educational ones, whilst also articulating a vision of Australian nationhood. I find he is worthy of mention for these achievements alongside Phillip and Macquarie who are mentioned in the article for other singularly significant contributions to the development of Australian society. It is true he become more aristocratic as time went on but he started as a democrat and continued to advocate for a parliament even as his views on the franchise changed - he has been described as a Whig. Such views might be visible here in the first source I cited:
The [Legislative Council] 'bears many resemblances to the House of Lords': 'It forms that just equipoise between the democratic and supreme powers of the state, which has been found necessary not less to repress the licentiousness of the one, than to curb the tyranny of the other'.
His significance is indicated by the ways he was cited by Sir Henry Parkes and the historian Manning Clarke. Happy to modify the wording if needed. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aemilius Adolphin Would it be satisfactory if it read as follows?
Meanwhile, colonists such as William Wentworth – who played a key role in the development of self-government in New South Wales – began to articulate potential forms of a union of the Australian colonies.
Wentworth is already mentioned and there is a link to the article on him where those interested can read all about his contributions to Australia -- both positive and negative. Parkes isn't even mentioned in the entire article so I don't see any reason why Wentworth should be mentioned twice. If you disagree you can start a section on the Talk page and seek consensus for your proposed change. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aemilius Adolphin Fair point. Perhaps a more general sentence about the growing calls for a union of the Australian colonies, mentioning in passing Wentworth, Parkes, et. al. would be justified. Something perhaps reading as such:
Meanwhile, numerous colonists such as William Wentworth, John Dunmore Lang and Sir Henry Parkes began to articulate ideas for a union of the Australian colonies.
Yes, this would improve the article because it suddenly jumps to federation with no inkling of why this hapened. I would say, "a number of colonists" rather than "numerous". I also think "a union of Australian colonies" is too precise because the proposals were for various loose associations and trans-colonial political institutions. I would also put the sentence immediately before the sentence on Aboriginal removals. From memory, Wentworth and Lang developed their proposals for a loose union in the 1850s and Parkes' proposals were in the 1880s. So perhaps a sentence could be, "From the 1850s a number of colonists such as William Wentworth, John Dunmore Lang and Sir Henry Parkes began to articulate ideas for an association of the Australian colonies."(I'm not sure if "association" is the right word though. Any suggestions? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aemilius Adolphin that works well. “Association” I think is a fittingly broad term though I think “Union” could be better as it could mean anything from federation to a loose association, in my view. Always glad to work things out with you - will give it a go later. Cheers thorpewilliam (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Willthorpe, it's certainly possible. Simply post to the nomination page that you wish to withdraw the nomination, and someone will take care of closing it for you. Sorry things didn't work out! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that "during a dispute" helps much as it is vague and will simplyled to the question "dispute over what". The whole section on Cook's death is is full of myths and needs to be rewritten. I hope to get around to this in the next few weeks. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Central West Express, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange railway station. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
I worked for a while at the Google office at One Darling Island, right near The Star station; it was a fun area to explore on foot and by light rail. I even lived in REVY C for a couple of months. I may be back there later this year or some time in 2025. Dicklyon (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon I had never paid any attention to the Royal Edward Victualling Yard, let alone knew its name or that you could live there!
It's great to explore the Inner West and that area around the city centre (Annandale, Glebe and Balmain are remarkably pretty suburbs), and the history of the Inner West Light Rail line is certainly fascinating. You were staying very close to Rozelle, where there used to be the Rozelle Yard which has in part been retained for railway use as a depot for the light rail; I'm sure you know this already but I am restating. It's great that the line was given a new purpose after the old traffic ceased.
Something similar is happening in Parramatta, where the Carlingford and Sandown lines have been reutilised by the Parramatta Light Rail which will open very soon. You may be interested in exploring this if you're back this year or next. Also, I believe there are some remnants of the old White Bay branch along the waterfront there, though I haven't seen for myself.
The closest I got to the new Rozelle Parklands, which wasn't open yet. There might be a good photo-op from this new pedestrian overpass.
Yes, the REVY is another good piece of repurposed history that many people don't know much about. My colleagues who had been at Google for a while saw the renovation of the disused REVY C into luxury apartments over several years, but none of them had been inside, so I hosted a lunch on the roof. Nice views over their ODI building and over Jones Bay Wharf and all around. REVY A and B were bought by Google, I'm told, but development plans have I think been put on a hold for a while. I lived in Balmain, on the Rozelle border, for a while, too. The busses and ferries made for some good commute alternatives.
Thanks for that article. You're a good writer, and it's I totally agree on how important local history is. I'm always dragging people by points of historical interest at home (Silicon Valley). Dicklyon (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon Balmain is great for getting around! I live in Haberfield in close proximity to Summer Hill station, the Inner West Light Rail and several bus routes.
I visited a friend in Summer Hill a few times, via the T and L. Nice area. I'm not sure I made it to Haberfield – can't quite see where it is on Google Maps – but I got off at a few stops to shoot the Hawthorne Canal. Inspired by your article, I added a new photo at White Bay Power Station#Recent uses; not beautiful, but it's all I had. Silicon Valley has been OK, but it's not nearly as nice as Sydney. Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good photo! I enjoyed the Biennale there. The border of Haberfield and Leichhardt follows the Hawthorne Canal, so if you crossed it, you've been in Haberfield! Will Thorpe (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my Photos app and the map in the article you linked, I'd say we walked through that corner of Haberfield, down Sloane Street and then south along the canal to the station. Very nice. My friend didn't know what canal/creek it was, so I worked on that. No great photos along that stretch, though. I also made it down to Waratah Mills, specifically to photograph the Bandicoots sculpture, that was made by a lady that my wife took an art class from. Dicklyon (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon I never thought canals were a regional thing; I'm sure from television that there's at least one famous canal in Los Angeles, a massive one too!
That's a lovely statue, I haven't seen it before. Have you seen the sculpture at Hawthorne station made using old rails? If you walk from Hawthorne to the The Bay Run (a great route to walk, the old Callan Park mental hospital is fascinating, go explore it when you get the chance), you may come across a sculpture made of bicycle parts! Will Thorpe (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work - would be great to have a slightly longer lede for the casual reader? thanks
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
It specifically lists Parramatta light rail as its own network - when you click the timetable L4 is specifically listed as Parramatta light rail network whereas L1-L3 is Sydney light rail network as per official documentation.
Maybe something like this would be ok as a compromise "Although the light rail is located in Sydney it forms its own Parramatta light rail network and is not part of the Sydney light rail network"
So this tells the user whilst it is located in Sydney it is operated as two different independent networks. This makes more sense as the L5 is under construction.
The article about Sydney light rail does mention the entirely of Sydney but this is before we knew it was going to be operated under a different branding. There's nothing in tfnsw saying it's part of the Sydney network. 115.128.99.66 (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I added the edits to the talk page. Let's take it there.
They are officially two different networks managed by a single entity (tfnsw) under an integrated fare - opal) under the same branding. Yes I agree that it is part of the broader light rail system in Sydney - the current wording you propose would have been good on any other day unfortunately tfnsw (which is the official source for this) has reserved the Sydney Light Rail network wording for only L1-L3. By naming L4 as part of the Sydney light rail network it would cause confusion for people.
Not sure why there's an issue saying that light rail in Sydney is now comprised with 2 different networks, when tfnsw says it is, and also they don't connect with each other. 203.158.46.181 (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
