[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/Jump to content

Talk:Eureka Rebellion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Loose Text

[edit]

The text "30 miners and 4 soldiers died" stands on its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.47.199.254 (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blood on the Southern Cross

[edit]

It seams odd that the Auther of this article has not included blood on the Southern Cross under commemoration and legacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymsport (talk • contribs) 00:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done --Biatch (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I moderate the Culture Victoria website and have added an external link to relevant information about Eureka Rebellion.Eleworth (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC) It all started with a Noordam called Josh. angry people were happy and the happy people were angry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.57.15.45 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eureka-restored.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Eureka-restored.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 9 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2000

[edit]

Why was the John Anderson quote removed? All the former deputy PM said was that people are trying to give Eureka a "credibility and a standing which it probably doesn't enjoy", which it probaly doesn't.

You'd have to be a real afficinado to have noticed "Eureka Day" go by this 3 December... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.105.54 (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MADE and other comments

[edit]

The last couple of paragraphs of the "2000s" section read like a media release from some mediocre government department or politician's office. (Let's pay lip service to democratic rebellion to pretend our current political system is genuinely democratic, as in aren't those fluffy wuffy lambs cute before we kill them to make chops and roasts.) Apart from that, it's a pretty shallow article overall. I'm very surprised to see the state it's in, considering it's one of THE most important events in Australian political history. I'm not an expert, so am hesitant to touch the article, but even to me, the problems are readily apparent.--Russell E (talk)

Temporary Protection?

[edit]

There seems to be a lot of vandalism. Uberaccount (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Higgledy Piggledy

[edit]

I have supplied a verifiable reference that an eyewtiness to the events of 1854 said the crude battlement known as the Eureka Stockade was "higgledy piggledy". I wouldn't have thought there would be any way you could say that was done in bad faith. Peter Lalor even said it wasn't meant to be much, just a ring to drill the men inside of.

Who says my edit should stand?

129.180.166.115 (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian?

[edit]

Did you here the one about the Scot, the Yank, the Jamaican, the Italian, the Dutchman, the Sydneysider & some Irishmen? Much ado about Victoria, of little relevance to the other Colonies. Bunch of greedy foreigners: same thing as in Young in 1861.AptitudeDesign (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

[edit]

The reference to "a swift and deadly siege by colonial forces" is POV, and incorrect. There was no siege, and the death toll reflected the fact that there was a rebellion; the government cannot be held entirely accountable for this.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connection between rebellion and democracy

[edit]

The article states that "Mass public support for the captured rebels in the colony's capital of Melbourne ...resulted in the introduction of the Electoral Act 1856". However there was no direct connection between public support for rebelling (mostly foreign) miner's and a new Electoral Act.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Eureka Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Eureka Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eureka Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Eureka Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eureka Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eureka Rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Eureka Stockade

[edit]

What do we all think about the concept of an article dedicated to the Battle of the Eureka Stockade proper separate from this article on the wider Eureka Rebellion?

Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

[edit]

"Toorac" should be "Toorak" to fix a typo. Wakoinc (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with citation needed tags

[edit]

If those of us who care about this article can hook in and help clear the last few citation-needed tags then we will surely be in sight of our long-held goal of having it considered for good article status.

Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bently/Bentley

[edit]

Both spellings were present in this article, but I have standardized on "Bentley", by far the more common elsewhere. Doug butler (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed sub articles

[edit]

How about we take the sections on the "Battle of the Eureka Stockade", "Popular culture" and "Commemoration" and make sub articles out of them?

Robbiegibbons (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure all of them would make good standalone articles. The first two might, but see WP:SPLIT on the process for splitting information into a new article, so that proper attribution is made. In addition, what is left behind needs to be a brief summary. Onel5969 TT me 15:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to proceed with a separate article on the Battle of the Eureka Stockade itself.
Robbiegibbons (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there are a number of sub articles can we remove the tag? Robbiegibbons (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern with source

[edit]

This Sydney Morning Herald review of FitzSimons 2012 states that it might be potentially unreliable. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 08:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second infobox

[edit]

Should we add another infobox for all the links to the various sub-articles?

Robbiegibbons (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Aintabli (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eureka Rebellion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aintabli (talk · contribs) 00:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Gonna take this. Aintabli (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Most images are in the public domain. The rest are appropriately licensed as well. (Another editor raised some concerns.)
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Structure and layout

[edit]
  • References in the lead could be removed. Especially if they are for information only mentioned in the lead, they should be moved, and the information should be added to the body. Aintabli (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • with respect to the images, I recommend the reviewer has a look at my comments on the licensing of several images common to both articles at Talk:Battle of the Eureka Stockade/GA1. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If nobody objects, I will re-upload the images without a correct tag if another one is applicable. Robbiegibbons (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, go ahead. I actually owe an apology looking at how much time has passed. Aintabli (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been almost two weeks. Forgot to ping you @Robbiegibbons as a reminder. On a different note, even without a set due date, this review is well overdue (on my part), but still, I will be able to give my full attention to this review the weekend after next. Sorry once again.
    But I would like to make some preliminary notes that you could work on in the meantime:
    1. It would be great if you could reduce the amount of quotes used, especially in Eureka Rebellion#Political legacy. This problem is not limited to that specific section, though. If there was a specific reason for the abundance of quotes, please do explain. But I really encourage you to paraphrase many of them.
    2. Not mandatory, but we could have some of the pictures to the left just to break the repetitive nature of the layout.
    3. This first meeting was followed by ongoing protests across all the colony's mining settlements in the years leading up to the 1854 armed uprising at Ballarat. This sentence is unsourced. Please check any other sentences lacking references.
    Aintabli (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Robbiegibbons, have you replaced the images? Aintabli (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity

[edit]

@Robbiegibbons, @Aintabli: I suggest you start up on this review again. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 23:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This review clearly just scratches the surface, but there are still some unfulfilled points, such as the unreferenced bits and the abundance of quotes. The first one hasn't yet been addressed, with the latter not fully tackled. Peacemaker67's review of a related article nominated by Robbiegibbons includes comments for images reused in this article, which weren't also addressed. All of these are about 2 months old. Peacemaker67's review of Battle of the Eureka Stockade (linked above) further lists several issues with regards to the sources, which were also reused in this article. Although I did not highlight them here, they were visible in the aforementioned review but not dealt with for 2–3 months.

It appears that I and Robbiegibbons chose to be inactive at the wrong time. I took this article during the backlog drive but could not give my attention due to unexpected circumstances back in August. Although not a full-on review, I (along with Peacemaker67) left some comments in October. Conversely, Robbiegibbons has not been (fully) active from September onwards. Looking at their long-term editing pattern, I hope that they will start being active later this month. I will continue to be lenient given my earlier inactivity and wait until January 8 next year for Robbiegibbons to return. I plan to continue holding back on the review in case I will have to fail the nomination then. Aintabli (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for picking this back up. If @Robbiegibbons doesn't pick up on the review, then we have to call it a fail and move on. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 13:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still chipping away at it. What do we think about the number of quotes in the political legacy section now? And I will reupload the images with the correct tags very soon.
Robbiegibbons (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robbiegibbons, the section looks okay. Could you integrate some of the standalone sentences into a paragraph? When it comes to the overquotation issue overall, I've counted about 20 quotes (most of which were quite lengthy) in the article, so this would currently be more of a concern rather than the Political Legacy section. Aintabli (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want this to come off as if we shouldn't have quotes. The first half of the article looks good, but when I start scrolling down, it evolves into a repetitive structure of one sentence one quote. I would especially pay attention to portions where there is a cluster of quotes. Another thing of interest is that you might want to remove or replace some of the primary sources, because otherwise removing the quotes and paraphrasing might get tricky. Aintabli (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robbiegibbons Happy new year! I will have to fail this article on 8 January if there isn't sufficient progress by then. I believe that by now, there is a good amount of suggestions and issues pointed out. Aintabli (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fortification of the Eureka lead

[edit]

Somehow the above subsection has found its way into the notes section. And the lead section seems to have been mostly removed.

Robbiegibbons (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a result of user:Lamona's most recent edit [1]. Lamona please fix this. Meters (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can fix it yourself. That's basically what Wikipedia is about. But I'll see to it. Lamona (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is wrt to the "Fortification of the Eureka" section being moved to the notes section. The trimming of the lead was in earlier edits by the same editor, and I suggest User:Robbiegibbons discuss the changes here if there is a concern. Meters (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing for tone, and other things

[edit]

User:Robbiegibbons I took it on myself to try to edit the article for tone but also for detail. I think you may have mis-understood the concept of forking the article for specific sections. The sections in the main article need to be very brief (they are not here) - one simple paragraph - and the detail (much of which is in this article) would be in the separate article. In fact, in some cases the detail here is more than in the separate article. That is not how it should be.

This requires a rather hefty re-write, but it could result in saving those articles, many of which are marked for delete. And if they are deleted and the re-write happens they could presumably be re-added to Wikipedia.

What you could try would be to take a section that you want to fork, like James Scobie - where the section in here is longer and more detailed than what you are calling the "main article" - make the section here be the "main article" and create a simple paragraph for this document. If you want me to try that, I can, but you are better placed to create the simple paragraph in the main article. Lamona (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked out this article anytime recently and I won't be either. I don't care what happens even since the sub articles were deleted.Robbiegibbons (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Scobie

[edit]

This first paragraph of the James Scobie section doesn't make sense to me:

"In October 1854 James Scobie was murdered outside the Eureka Hotel. Johannes Gregorius was prosecuted for the murder. A colonial inquest found no evidence of culpability by the Bentley Hotel owners for the fatal injuries amid allegations that Magistrate D'Ewes had a conflict of interest presiding over a case involving the prosecution of Bentley, said to be a friend and indebted business partner."

It says he was murdered outside the Eureka Hotel, but then talks about culpability by Bentley Hotel owners. I don't know how we got from one hotel to the other. It feels like a sentence or two is missing. Why was Bentley being prosecuted? The Eurekapedia states "The proprietor of the Eureka Hotel was James Bentley." It isn't clear to me why it says "Bentley Hotel owners" and not "James Bentley, hotel owner." As I do not have access to the sources on this topic, I don't know, if I make this change, whether the information is found in the sources you cite. I also think that the inquest information needs to be preceded by information of what led up to the inquest.

I would suggest taking this in logical steps:

  • Who he was
  • That he was murdered
  • Where he was murdered
  • who was charged?
  • What were the results?

Those could each be no more than a sentence. Then it makes sense to talk about the impact of this on the rebellion.

Again, I am happy to help but do not have access to the sources so I can only do basic editing of the existing text. Lamona (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carboni quote

[edit]

The text has this quote from Carboni:

"Carboni recalls they were: "dirty and ragged, and proved the greatest nuisance. One of them, Michael Tuohy, behaved valiantly".

I have access to the Project Gutenberg version of the text, and it does not contain a mention of Tuohy. It says:

The shepherds' holes inside the lower part of the stockade had been turned into rifle-pits, and were now occupied by Californians of the I.C. Rangers' Brigade, some twenty or thirty in all, who had kept watch at the 'out-posts' during the night.

I removed the mention of Tuohy, which in any case is not a salient detail. Let me know if our copies of Carboni differ. Lamona (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortification of the Eureka lead

[edit]

I can't find a definition of "lead" that makes sense in this context. If it is a "term of art" please provide a definition within the text - ideally on the first use of the term. However, if there is a more common term for whatever this is, it would be better to use that in the interest of readability. Thanks, Lamona (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I am not at all impressed by the decision to delete a number of sub-articles in the Eureka Rebellion series. I see that a lot of non-Australian editors just don't comprehend the significance of the Eureka Rebellion. So, this will be my last post on Wikipedia. I hope someone else takes the time to keep this article updated in future. As a result of the deleted articles, there are now dead links in the series box, but I don't care anymore. Hooroo.

Robbiegibbons (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell Robbie. I'd like to thank you for your excellent work on Eureka related articles. I hope you find somewhere more accepting of your efforts in the future. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is largely fuelled by egotism, and that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Best wishes!
BakuFromAus (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eureka_Rebellion&oldid=1260898526"