Willthorpe

Your changes to Cook lead

Hello again

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)

@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)

Further to this, I accept your reasoning for reverting. The lead does a good job as is. thorpewilliam (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, your changes are an improvement, but I wonder how long "sometimes" will go unchallenged! Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Settler colonialism, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. (t · c) buidhe 14:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@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)

@Buidhe My apologies. I just read your explanation in the revert edit. thorpewilliam (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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) buidhe 15:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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.

Or some variation thereof. thorpewilliam (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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.

I might add this if you have no objection, otherwise I may take it to the talk page. Please let me know if this resolves any issues. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I've removed the efn you added in Special:Diff/1191858587 since it was undefined. Feel free to readd it if you fix it. Happy new year! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wentworth-Bland flag

Hello! Your submission of Wentworth-Bland flag at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @BlueMoonset, at the moment I might be more inclined to withdraw the nomination. Is this possible? Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

@BlueMoonset It's okay! I'm just not so willing to at the moment nor sure about merging the page's contents into another. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

James Cook, death in lead

Hello there

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)

@Aemilius Adolphin Best of luck there; I think there has to be some inclusion of context. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)