Talk:Hay and Hell and Booligal

Reference to 'Hell's Gate' deleted

I have deleted the sentence "'Hell' may also refer to a nearby property called 'Hell's Gate'" from the article, which has a reference to an article "Booligal', SMH Travel, Sydney Morning Herald, 8 February 2004. The quote is misleading and inaccurate. The full quote from this article is: "... according to the poem which presents a visit to the town as a fate worse than hell, possibly a reference to the property of 'Hell's Gate' which lies between Hay and Balranald". A search of newspaper references in Trove finds only one reference to a station called "Hell's Gate" from 1880, on the Murray River near Tocumwal [see for example Southern Argus (Port Elliott, SA), 5 August 1880, page 4]. This is distant enough from Booligal and Hay to make it completely improbable that this property is the source of "Hell" in the phrase "Hay, Hell and Booligal" in the newspaper articles quoted (let alone in Patterson's poem), whereas the evidence for conflating Hell with the One Tree Plain between Hay and Booligal is compelling (see details in the article). Ikeshut2 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Reference to Booligal plagues deleted

I have deleted the following paragraph and quote:

Booligal was indeed the victim of many natural disasters around this time. As well as the usual droughts and floods, in 1890 the town was victim to a rabbit plague. Despite poisoning and "drives" killing hundreds and thousands of rabbits, the pasture was severely depleted. This was quickly followed by another plague; this time of grasshoppers who ate everything that grew, including the produce in the Chinese gardens.[10] Nevertheless, the description of the town was not popular with Booligal residents:

The inhabitants of Booligal rather resent their village being immortalised in "Banjo" Paterson's famous poem, and ever try to show that the poet made an error of judgment. — R. B. Ronald, [10]

The reasons for deleting this material are as follows:

Inaccuracy: for example, the suggestion that Booligal “was victim to a rabbit plague” in 1890. Rabbits had been present in the Booligal district by at least 1883, and they were an ongoing problem from then on. There was a locust plague in 1890, but the passage suggests it was one plague followed by another.

Irrelevance: The newspaper articles that influenced Paterson’s poem were published in 1889 and the poem was published in 1896, so why choose a badly-written secondary source as some sort of authority on Booligal’s “natural disasters” supposedly occurring in 1890? This passage falls into the trap of imagining it has to justify the details of Paterson’s poem. The poem stands or falls on its own merits; it comes from Paterson’s imagination stimulated by contemporary newspaper reports from the district, using exaggeration for humorous intent. There’s no need to somehow try to justify the work by bringing in irrelevant and inaccurate information from a source purporting to be some sort of historical authority.

The quote from R. B. Ronald from the same secondary source is an OK quote, but there is no further information about the quote. Ronald wrote a book: The Riverina: People and Properties (Melb, 1960). It may come from that, but the source is not specific. It has been replaced with much more pertinent material.

The section deleted (passage and quote) has been replaced with a section dealing with local reactions to Paterson’s poem from both Booligal and Hay, with quotes drawn from primary sources.Ikeshut2 (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)