Talk:Ned Kelly/Archive 1

Archive 1

Game as Ned Kelly?

I don't think a footnote from 1976 demonstrates this to be a common expression. I doubt I hear it once a decade.

Emphasize

Emphasise

top priority

who was his mother 74.184.3.10 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

i know

ellen kelly ;) SNN2 (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

To do

Other things that need to be mentioned:

• The Jerilderie letter.
• The various fictional retellings (the early film version, the Mick Jagger version, the Peter Carey novel, the other novel that was adapted into the film version with Heath Ledger).

--Robert Merkel 13:20 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I was under the belief that the 1906 film The Story of the Kelly Gang was the first full length film. --Roisterer 20:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In early life "nineth of eight children" needs to be fixed. Obviously if there were eight kids total, he could not be the ninth. Also, is "nineth" an acceptable spelling of "ninth"?--66.63.116.254 28 June 2005 23:13 (UTC)

Can we obtain an image of his armour? It's such an important part of the history and legend I'm surprised there's no images of it. --Mintie 05:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

In the section, "The Killings at Stringybark Creek," the name "Scanlon" is misspelled once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.155.128 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikification

I added the wikify tag. The inline citations throughout the article are poorly done and inconsistent - they should be footnotes anyway; the way the author added them seems like they're writing a school report, and doesn't fit with the rest of the article (or Wikipedia in general). Also the mention of the article about the discovery of the pistol seems hastily inserted. -Jaardon (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fizpatrick's "assault" on Kate Kelly

The following sentence is inappropriate, "Ned's sister Kate also attracted the attention of Constable Alexander Fitzpatrick, who assaulted her and raped her twice on a visit to the Kelly home in 1878. Fitzpatrick accused Ned of attempted murder, and Ned went into hiding;". There is no evidence that Fitzpatrick assaulted Kate Kelly – a later elaboration that was not, afaik, reported at the time even by the Kellys. Any the Kelly version should not be presented as fact while the Fizpatrick version is presented as an accusation. Neither parties were trustworthy witnesses. Paul B 18:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

please see my edit of the sentence and check if that answers your concerns--User:AYArktos | Talk 20:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ned's age when his father died

I've changed the age from 12 to 11, following this page:

"The 'parcels' are written by Peter Carey from Ned Kelly's perspective, and are not Ned's words. They begin with the following: "I lost my own father at 12 yr. of age…" Actually, Ned's precise age at the time of his father's death has not yet been discovered by researchers, (as no record of his birth or baptism survives). However, reliable documented evidence proves that Ned believed himself to be "11 ½" years of age on 27 Dec 1866, (Ned himself gave this information and signed father's death registration)."

Cnwb 05:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ned Kelly Links

A historically reliable non-profit website that could be added to the links for this section is http://www.bailup.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.11.177 (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hero?

Ned Kelly is anti-racist hero???? Some think so on your conceptions of race page. Await the return 11:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Devil's Rejects

There is a parallel to Ned Kelly's last stand in the film Devil's Rejects. The Firefly family members are wearing Ned Kelly armor, and there are four of them fighting off a police siege.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.125.5 (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This section of the page is badly organized. The dates are clearly wrong as Kelly goes from 4 to 16 in the space of a couple years and it seems as if there is some text missing. The first two paragraphs are esepcially bad. What exactly was the Kelly family being charged with? Kerowyn 05:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article could do with some cleaning up in general - in particular the citations and the seemingly hastily inserted bit on the article about the pistol being discovered. I added a wikify tag. -Jaardon (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah Fook?!

Does anyone have a source for the name of the assaulted chinese pig farmer? Sounds like a prank to me.

http://www.glenrowan1880.com/ah_fook.htm (I've added it to the article). Stevage 12:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Re Ah Fook - he certainly existed though his evidence may have been suspect. Refer to Ian Jones, (1995)Ned Kelly,pp.37-38 for material on Ah Fook. Such names were common in the era. Refer also to A.O'Brien, (1999) [unpublished]thesis titled 'Awaiting Ned Kelly' available for inspection and research at Burke Museum reading room, Beechworth, for a range of Chinese names simailar to Ah Fook and for an insight into the Chinese giving (false) evidence in Beechworth and surrounding courts during early 1870s. See also A.O'Brien's [published] Shenanigans on the Ovens Goldfields (2005) for a indepth chapter on Chinese on the Northeastern goldfields during 1859. Also refer to K. Cronin, Colonial Casualties: Chinese in early Victoria, Melbourne University Press, 1982. Tonyob 00:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack Duggan: "The Wild Colonial Boy"

A song is often sung in Ireland about an Irish-born Austalian outlaw called Jack Duggan, ("The Wild Colonial Boy"). According to the song, he was born in Castlemaine, County Kerry, Ireland. That town now has signs at the entrance, (from memory, please correct if need be) "Birth-place of The Wild Colonial Boy."

    "There was a wild colonial boy
     Jack Duggan was his name.
     He was born and reared in Ireland
     In a place called Castlemaine..."

Naturally,

     "He robbed the rich
     To help the poor."

And, for good measure,

     "He stabbed James McEvoy."

Duggan, at least from the information provided by the song, died in a shoot-out with three policemen, two of whom he downed:

     "But a bullet pierced
     His proud young heart
     From the pistol of Fitzroy
     And that was how they captured Jack,
     The Wild Colonial Boy."

If anyone has any information on this character, I'd be delighted to hear from them--PeadarMaguidhir 11:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I too was introduced to this song in primary school in Australia along with other Australian/Irish/British folk songs (Click go the Shears, Bound for Botany Bay, Waltzing Matilda etc.). However the version we learnt didn't mention Ireland and changed his name to Doolan (not Duggan). I was always of the belief that it was a fictional amalgam of lots of Australian bush rangers.--81.144.244.194 11:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Lucas

Here in Australia we are very familiar with that particular folk song. The original "Wild Colonial Boy" was a bushranger named Jack Donohoe, a native of Dublin who was transported to New South Wales in 1825, escaped to the bush, and ranged the Penrith area for about four years, before being tracked down by a posse of police, soldiers and volunteers, and shot in the head. Snottygobble 12:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for the information. I just wonder how the name, Jack Donoghue, fits into the song's meter. Any further explanations/theories/historical fragments/biographies will be most welcome.--PeadarMaguidhir 20:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My father and others used to sing it here in Australia. Just the other year I had to sing it at a lockdown in a pub in Dingle just down the road from Castlemaine and it took a few hours of thirsty discussion to get to an agreed understanding. There's a few different versions and of course all insist theirs is the correct one. The one I always heard was:

"There was a wild colonial boy,
Jack Doolan was his name
Of poor but honest parents,
He was born in a Castlemaine,
He was his father's only son,
His mother's pride and joy,
And dearly did his parents love,
Their wild colonial boy "

"At the tender age of sixteen years,
Jack left his native home,
And to (or through) Australia's sunny shores,
A bushranger did roam,
He robbed the lordly squatters,
And (mumble something) of their toys,
A terror to Australia was,
The wild colonial boy.."

and so on.

For a thorough background to the origins of the song try [http://hyperhistory.org/index.php?option=displaypage&Itemid=674&op=page The Wild Colonial Boy Turning Legend into History]By Allen Mawer - The National Centre for History Education

Tim O'Leary (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinamen

As much as I dislike most people of oriental descent, isn't the term "chinaman" derogatory when used on a encyclopedia? 88.110.253.25 23:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you dislike most people of oriental descent, but this is not the place to voice such prejudice Millbanks 08:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Changed - you could have edited it too :-) --Arktos ^talk 23:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Are we talking about the guys who made the railroads? Alastairward 23:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the Afghans built the railways. Millbanks 08:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

wow...actually the term "oriental" is equally offensive. Jaardon (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is "oriental" offensive in itself? It just means "eastern".Ondewelle (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Article is lacking evidence - Ned Kelly

This article needs a good work over and citations. Some claims in this article are untrue and unsourced. Have made a few changes and added the essential citations and will rework some other comments. Comments quoted from another website aren't evidence.Tonyob 04:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ned Kelly as Political Icon

The following post was edited by the author 8th Jan.

With removal of additional new paragraphs on the subject, with respect, I am hopeful to have some of it if not all re-instated. Further onging research into the 'Gorman' / Kelly / Berrigan ANA / Federation League Berrigan connections are verifiable. web page http://www.ironicon.com.au/nativened.htm

I look forward to see a balanced view presented, not one where Ned is always expunged from our history except for bushranging, murder and outlawry. I can understand reluctance to have information posted on Wikipedia if it is not entirely true. However, when does truth become accepted?

I agree the current text under heading 'Ned Kelly as political Icon' is short and sweet, and goes some way to explain what Ned could have been, but fails to explain how close he was to our political structure via Federation.

I will not re edit the page, but hope someone will consider the connections and make mention of it.

With thanks Bill Denheld 5 Jan 2007 edited 8 Jan 07

The underlying principle for Wikipedia is not that something is "true" but that it is "verifiable". So we do not include what we "know" but what we can find a source for. Find a written source to support your POV and it can be included, with the source. --Michael Johnson 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Michael, Verification will not be too difficult as it is underpined by truth. With thanks, Bill

Introduction

The author of the last change to the introduction has asked for it to be discussed on the talk page. As requested here are my comments:

his violent confrontations in home-made plate metal armour and helmet There was only one confrontation in armour.

gained made him hu?

most well-known perhaps best-known?

He was hanged at Melbourne Gaol after being wounded in a showdown Wasn't there a trial in between?

at Glenrowan in 1880 disjointed from the above mentioned confrontations.

The introduction as it stands now needs to be re-written.

--Michael Johnson 11:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the introduction to comver many of the concerns above. Please note the use of the work iconic. I believe this best represents Kelly's position in Australian history. --Michael Johnson 00:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

'as game as Ned Kelly'

The Australian term 'as game as Ned Kelly' entered the language and is a common expression. Could someone explain what this expression means? --Ace Frahm 15:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"As game as Ned Kelly", is defined in the Australian Macquarie Dictionary as 'very game, fearless'. The term is used to describe another person: eg. 'Bill is as game as Ned Kelly.', or 'Bill is gamer than Ned Kelly.' It is a form of compliment or praise suggesting that Bill will take on any-one, any thing or any adversity, when others would run away.JjPhantom 04:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Stringybark Killings

It says in the article that the constable pulled out a revolver and in the first volley of fire shot and killed ned instantly. No chance. He was hung at glenrowan right? Are you sure it wasn't dan who was killed? Check it. -- Will James 09:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

GET A PIC OF HIM WITH HIS HELM ON SO FOOLS FROM AMERICA AND BRITAIN CAN RECOGNISE HIM :P!!!!!! plus the one with the beard is lame...it defeats the purpose of Ned Kelly ....literally

Vandalism?

The phrase, "ejaculated on some parrots" found its way into the article. Could someone investigate and restore the the original text? Thanks.

We're seeing quite a lot of vandalism of this article. Perhaps it might be a good idea to protect it for a while? DrJon 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone changed one of the titles to Dick Head, someone please change? Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.36.45 (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Eat my shorts" quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.173.157 (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ned Kelly

Ned Kelly

Edward "Ned" Kelly (c. January 1855 – 11 November 1880) is Australia's most famous bushranger, and, to many, a folk hero for his defiance of the colonial authorities. Born near Melbourne to an Irish convict father, as a young man he clashed with the police. After an incident at his home, police parties went in search of him. After murdering three policemen, he and his gang were proclaimed outlaws. A final violent confrontation with police at Glenrowan, with Kelly dressed in home-made plate metal armour and helmet, led to his capture and trial. He was executed by hanging at Melbourne Gaol in 1880. His daring and notoriety made him an iconic figure in Australian history, folk lore, literature, art and film.

John "Red" Kelly, the father of Ned Kelly, was convicted in Ireland and transported to Van Diemen's Land. There is uncertainty surrounding "Red's" conviction and as most of Ireland's court records were destroyed during the Irish Civil War it is unlikely to be resolved.

Jones claims that 'Red' stole two pigs belonging to Coloney. Brown suggested 'Red' attempted to shoot an Irish landlord. Another claims 'Red' stole two pigs, which were the property of a Mr Quainy. According to Jones, 'Red' was an informer, but again this claim is contested. Whatever his crime, 'Red' was sentenced to seven years of penal servitude and transported to Van Diemen's Land (now Tasmania) and arrived in 1843.

After his release in 1848, Red moved to Victoria in 1849 and found work in Beveridge at the farm of James Quinn. Red Kelly, aged 30, married Quinn's daughter Ellen, then 18. Their first child died early, but Ellen then gave birth to a daughter, Annie, in 1853. In all they had eight children.

Their first son, Edward (Ned) Kelly, was born in Beveridge, Victoria just north of Melbourne in 1855. The exact date is unknown; various dates have been proposed, but there is no general agreement.

Ned was baptized by Augustinian priest Charles O'Hea. As a boy, he attended school and risked his life to save another boy, Richard Shelton, who was drowning. As a reward he was given a green sash by the boy's family, which he wore under his armour during his final showdown with police in 1880.

The Kellys were always suspected of cattle or horse stealing, though they were never convicted. 'Red' Kelly was arrested when he killed and skinned a calf, which the police said belonged to a neighbour. He was found not guilty of theft, but guilty of having removed the brand from the skin and fined 25 pounds or six months with hard labour. Not having money to pay the fine Red went to Kilmore gaol. The saga surrounding Red, and his treatment by the police, remained with Ned.

Red Kelly died at Avenel Vic on 27 December 1866 when Ned was only eleven and a half (as recorded by Ned on death certificate)[citation needed], and according to custom, he was forced to leave school to become head of the family. It was at this time, that the Kelly family moved to the Glenrowan area of Victoria, which to this day is known as Kelly Country. Ned grew up in poverty in some of the harshest conditions in Australia, and folk tales tell of his sleeping on the ground in the bush during the Victorian winter.

In all, 18 charges were brought against members of Ned's immediate family before he was declared an outlaw, while only half that number resulted in guilty verdicts. This is a highly unusual ratio for the time, and is one of the reasons that has caused many to posit that Ned's family was unfairly targeted from the time they moved to North-East Victoria. Perhaps the move was necessary because of Ellen's squabbles with family members and her appearances in court over family disputes.[1] O'Brien, (1999) however argued that Victoria's colonial policing in those days had nothing to do with winning a conviction, rather the determinant of one's criminality was the arrest.[2] Further, O'Brien argued, using the 'Statistics of Victoria' crime figures that the region's or family's or national criminality was determined not by individual arrests, but rather by the total number of arrests.[3]

Rise to notoriety In 1869, 14-year-old Ned was arrested for assaulting a Chinese pig farmer named Ah Fook.[4] Ah Fook claimed that he had been robbed by Ned, whose story was that Ah Fook had a row with his sister Annie. Ned spent ten days in custody before the charges were dismissed. From then on the police regarded him as a "juvenile bushranger".

The following year, he was arrested and accused of being an accomplice of bushranger Harry Power. No evidence was produced in court and he was released after a month. Historians tend to disagree over this episode: some see it as evidence of police harassment; others believe that Kelly’s relatives intimidated the witnesses, making them reluctant to give evidence. Kelly would later admit to being an accomplice of Power [citation needed], who was eventually arrested while hiding out on land belonging to Kelly's relatives. Ned's grandfather, James Quinn, owned a huge piece of land known as Glenmore Station at the head waters of the King River. It was at the top of this land where Power lived - on Quinn's land. Just over the range on the other side of King River is Stringybark Creek (see below).

In October 1870, Ned was arrested again for assaulting a hawker, Jeremiah McCormack, and for his part in sending McCormack's childless wife an indecent note that had calves' testicles enclosed. This was a result of a row earlier that day caused when McCormack accused a friend of the Kellys, Ben Gould, of using his horse without permission. Gould wrote the note, and Kelly passed it on to one of his cousins to give to the woman. He was sentenced to three months' hard labour on each charge.

Upon his release Ned returned home. There he met Isaiah "Wild" Wright who had arrived in the area on a beautiful chestnut mare. The mare had gone missing and since Wright needed to go back to Mansfield he asked Ned to find and keep it until his return. Ned found the mare and used it to go to town. He always maintained that he had no idea that the mare actually belonged to the Mansfield postmaster and that Wright had stolen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.205.106 (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In the section on bank robberies - "to their credit" ??

To their credit they were only thieves not murderers!

Perhaps this should be cut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.8.57 (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Lonigan or Lonergan?

In the section about the stringybrook creek killings, I believe that the name is supposed to be spelt Lonergan as apposed to Lonigan, however I'm not certain and don't want to make a change unless others know the correct spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.126.54 (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Lonigan

Correct spelling of Const. Thomas Lonigan's name is 'Lonigan'. However, several reasons why his name is so often misspelt is that the Age newspaper of the day spelt his name as 'Lanigan'. Many newspapers in the late 1800s got name spellings incorrect. Sometimes 'Lonigan' is incorrectly spelt (as is not a common version).

In passing, Michael Scanlon's name is misspelt on his tombstone in Mansfield cemetery (Scanlan) and his age (35) is incorrect; he was 36 years. Lonigan's age is also recorded as 34 years on his tombstone; he was 37 years old. Such mistakes etc during the era and often catchs-out researchers and family historians. Is this claim verifable? Yep! Tom Pryor, et al, A Pictorial History of Bushrangers, 1968, p. 110.

Also the Creek is 'Stringybark' not brook - see we all make mistrakes. 'Stringybark' is an Australian tree, which as you guessed it is a combination of two words; stringy & bark. It is a bit like 'Shark' also made up of two Australian words; the last two you say before the shark eats you... Sh.. and ... you guess the other. Tonyob (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

semi-protect?

This article cops an absolute hammering from vandals. It has been pointed out to me that reversions are not keeping up and rubbish is seeping into the article long term. How do people feel about long-term semi-protection? Hesperian 03:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Ned_Kelly_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 - please note the request - protection is essential - there a residual bits of vandalism throughout the article that are becoming embedded due to not very well thought out reversions - SatuSuro 03:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this. See below –Moondyne 12:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits

Recent edits have seen residual vandalism left in the article - any help in restoring resctions to their correct state would be appreciated - thanks SatuSuro 04:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I restored it to what appeared to me to be the last clean version. Do you see any other residual vandalism?--Kubigula (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not what I saw when I was following last batch of vndlsm - thank yu for your help SatuSuro 04:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

blue mountains

it is a beautiful site to look for crap

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.204.162 (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Quality

This article seems to be comprised of fragments from both a pro-Kelly and anti-Kelly standpoint. While reading it, I noted several occurances of what I would have to say are weasel words--on both sides. This whole article needs to be rewritten: citations are absent, the format of the article is tiring (pro-Kelly version, anti-Kelly version, pro-Kelly rebuttal, etc.) and convoluted. I am no Kelly expert, or I'd rewrite it myself. As is, I'll be happy to try to find reputable sources to back up any of the information--help would be appreciated. Phoenix Song (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with your sentiments (see above). However, in our land of Oz, these Kelly debates continue a century plus after his death. Some still have to move beyond an 1870s view of the Colony. In the interim, I'll try to get more citations into the piece in the hope that others won't delete if they disagree. Tonyob (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs a good image up top

The article needs a good image of Ned Kelly - in armour - right at the top of the article. This is what he is most famous for. That metal mask. It's how most people recognise him. Surely, there must be a free image of Ned Kelly in armour? Thanks, Lester 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would there be? He didn't dress up in it in front of a photographer, did he? Or is there something I'm missing? Phoenix Song (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've found this (http://calisto.slv.vic.gov.au/latrobejournal/issue/latrobe-69/fig-latrobe-69-048a.html), and I'm trying to verify both its accuracy and its copyright status. Phoenix Song (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Kelly Amour

Phoenix Song : The photo you mentioned at the site(http://calisto.slv.vic.gov.au/latrobejournal/issue/latrobe-69/fig-latrobe-69-048a.html), appears to be Joe Byrne's suit and helmet; not Kelly's. The citation is that it belonged to Superintendent Hare and this would reinforce that it was Joe Byrne's suit. Hare kept Joe's suit as a 'war trophy' and he (Hare) was closely connected to Rupertswood's then owner. The rifle possibly has nothing to do with the Kelly story, as it appears to be of a type later than 1880.Tonyob (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, sorry. When an article is about a person, it is about the person, and not their armour. Therefor a picture of the person in question is the most appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.255.133 (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Permanent semi-protection

I've indef-semi-protected this article due to constant vandalism. I struggled to find the last good edit which wasn't a vandalism revert. If anyone has a problem with this, or if you wish to contribute constructively to the article but are prevented from doing so due to the protection, post a note here. –Moondyne 12:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ned Kelly is particularly a hero for the Australian Celtic community, who view him as an anti-racist legend.

I removed the above sentence, as there seems to be several things wrong with it:

• Fistly it is entirely unsourced.
• The concept of an "Australian Celtic community", surely a complete fallicy.
• Anti-racist? How so? Maybe the writer is referring to anti-Irish racism. This does not sit neatly with the facts - an Irishman who murdered three Irish policemen, and was condemned to death by an Irish judge. If Kelly was unfairly persecuted, it was for a combination of factors, him being a poor Irish Catholic son of a convict. Several factors - and far more complex than some simple racism.
• Legend - maybe, but not for the reasons in this sentence.

--Michael Johnson 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have no understanding of the Irish identity if you call the judge Irish.

Well, I'm from Ireland myself, and I call the judge Irish. The man in question, Sir Redmond Barry, was born in Ballyclough, Co Cork, educated at Trinity College, Dublin, and a member of the Irish Bar. Ned Kelly, in contrast, was Australian born, and bred. How can you say that Kelly was Irish and Barry not? Millbanks 08:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The Attorney General of Victoria at the time of Kelly's trial and execution was another Irishman, Sir Bryan O'Loghlen. He was born in Co Clare and educated at Trinity College, Dublin. I find your comments about "understanding of the Irish identity" a bit odd. Millbanks 08:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, Trinity college in the 1800s was a friend to the Irish population. FUCK NO! Kelly was of rural stock surrounded and raised by peasant Irish people. Even his spoken words are littered with purely Irish idiomatic expressionss, as was his sensibility. Whereas Barry was an english subject (note the "sir") and english educated (note the "trinity"). I'm sure you understand Irish identity, but that doesn't mean Barry was more Irish Ned Kelly.

• I agree about it being completely unsourced
• If you think the "Australian Celtic Community" is a complete fallacy, I recommend Googling "Celtic Festval Australia" (without the quotes), and you'll discover there are at least 4.
• Regarding racism, you may well be right, but my impression is that the poor Irish regarded any Government figures who persecuted them as having sided with the English, who were the rulers at the time, thus he might become an "anti-racist legend", even though the persecution (or perceived persecution) may have been for a number of reasons.

HTH, TimNelson (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Barry was Anglo-Irish, which meant that he was part of the Irish ruling class aligned with British colonialism, aka the ascendancy. If he went to Trinity College, it means that he was an Anglican, therefore not catholic. So it would be quite right to see him aligned on the side of the English against the Irish. Of course, not all members of the Ascendancy were anti-Irish nationalism / republicanism. Nevertheless, as a rule, this is a valid assumption to make —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.210.81 (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel the 2003 film Ned Kelly was a success

{editsemiprotected} I feel the 2003 film Ned Kelly was a real success and not a failure as is portrayed in the page.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steerfoth (talk • contribs) 21:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Factual error in 'advertising' section

It wasn't Weetabix, the Uk version, that made these adds, it was Weet-Bix, the Aussie cereal made by Sanitarium. And don't give me this crap about 'providing a source' that anyone could have wrote please, I live in Australia and these adds were quite recent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.255.133 (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

A band formed in Austin, TX in 1996 named themselves "Reckless Kelly" after Ned Kelly. Their 2008 album "Bulletproof" features a drawing of the armored head of Ned Kelly with guns drawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganx80 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

32,434 Sign to Save Ned

RachelandBronwen has requested: please replace last line of Capture Trial and Execution by the following quotation from the Argus Newspaper of the day

32,434 Sign to Save Ned

[as reported in The Argus newspaper 9/11/1880] “[William] Gaunson [solicitor and politician, and member, Reprieve Committee] and the Kelly sisters were admitted to a retiring room, and the former handed Captain Le Patourel [secretary to the governor] the petitions he had been getting signed for presentation to the Governor, stating that they contained 32,434 signatures. “An examination of the petitions showed that they were signed principally in pencil, and by illiterate people, whilst whole pages were evidently written by one person. “The Executive of course determined to adhere to their decision—that the convict shall be executed on Thursday morning. This having been communicated to the prisoner's relatives they left, and returned to the Robert Burns Hotel. They were accompanied, as before, by a crowd and during the whole afternoon and evening the hotel was rushed. Immediately after their return James Kelly addressed the crowd, from the door, and told them that 'it was not all over yet'—a remark that was loudly cheered.”

I'll leave RachelandBronwen's suggestion open to a discussion here. Josh Parris 05:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

terrorist

Would it be entirely inaccurate to call Ned Kelly a terrorist?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.32.207.100 (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A significant factor would be that Wikipedia frowns upon the use of the word terrorist simply because of its loaded nature. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

swqeqeh3uq2BRBWDUYHUWHDUkoprgwejtioj43qoirjio43qjrio3j4qiorfn4iownfio4jriuthurwabfuhrbsguhbreshzjbfnrhjbfhbguerabfhurbhjrabufbhyugbre

Another song for the list

The 1983 album Fridge in the fast lane by the band Cluster of Nuts has a song called "Ned Kelly's Letter", which is essentially a Celtic-rock version of Ned Kelly's Cameron letter. (http://nedonline.imagineering.net.au/documents/04966-P0000-000001-0030-010-001.htm)

This is about Ned Kelly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.158.140 (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

One more song might be about him "Don't Fence Me In" by Cole Porter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.138.109 (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ned Kelly as Robin Hood?

Australian opposition leader Tony Abbott has called some recent government tax breaks "Ned Kelly taxes". Likewise, a google search for "ned kelly robin hood" brings up a few claims that mostly seems to be unsubstantiated, that the Kellys robbed from the rich (mostly banks, so I guess that part is true), and gave to the poor. Is there any evidence for this? Would make a good subsection somewhere, perhaps, if there is. --naught101 (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It would all depend who you asked. Some see Ned as nothing more than an evil, police killing criminal, others see him as a persecuted member of the Irish Catholic and rural community. He certainly had a lot of friends right to the end, and the usual sharing among friends would have occurred with whatever spoils Kelly gained. He certainly didn't use them to live the high life. HiLo48 (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Another Literary Referance

The satirical fantasy novel 'The Last Continent' by Terry Pratchett contains several references to a legendary outlaw called 'Tinhead Ned' who would appear to be based on Ned Kelly.

---

Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.18.246 (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JMCBok, 23 July 2011

The opening scene in the movie The Devil's Rejects has the family garbed in Kelly-gang type armor. I was hoping somebody could add that bit to the portion with the rest of the film influence paragraph.

JMCBok (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is British Empire shown as part of his places of birth and death?

And in an illogical order too? HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Selector/Squatter explanation?

The doesn't repeatedly mentions "selectors", "squatters", the "selector-squatter conflicts", and (presumably related) "Victoria's Land Selection Acts". But it doesn't explain these terms, or give any link to an article explaining them. Could someone provide this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.100.203 (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ad mentioned

Can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnYnNzs40K8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.231.128 (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Identification of Ned's remains

As I'm not yet entitled to edit the page, I thought it might be helpful to let everyone know that, as reported on the BBC News website, Ned's remains (or at least the majority of them) have now been identified: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14742311

Cheers

Bryn YorkshireBryn (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for highlighting this. Naturally it's all over the news here in Victoria, Australia. If nobody else tackles it I'll have a go at adding something in a few hours time. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't edit, either, but the main page says Kelly's remains were identified in "August" 2011. The announcement was made yesterday, September 1. Small but important fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.59.1 (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Jerilderie Letters

http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/collections/treasures/jerilderieletter/jerilderie00.html

````

Kev 20-10-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.167.166 (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

smjm 8Sept2011: Outdated url above. Letters can now be found at http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/our-collections/treasures-curios/jerilderie-letter (but a link to the wikipedia page on the letters would probably be more appropriate to this page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.173.6.25 (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Kellys

Does any Ned Kelly's relative live today ( or lived in this century )? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Istorrikas (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hare's Suspension?

The article states; "For his cowardice the Royal Commission later suspended Hare from the Victorian Police Force." listing a secondary source for support. The primary source clearly contradicts this statement. "Royal Commission into the Kelly Outbreak" stated in its Second Progress Report:

"That Superintendent Hare's services in the police force have been praiseworthy and creditable, but nothing special has been shown in his actions that would warrant the Commission in recommending his retention in the force, more especially when the fact is so patent that the "strained relations" between himself and Mr. Nicolson have had such a damaging influence on the effectiveness of the service. This feeling is not likely to be mitigated after what has transpired in the evidence taken before the Commission; and we would therefore recommend that Superintendent Hare be allowed to retire from the force, as though he had attained the age of 55 years, and that, owing to the wound he sustained at Glenrowan, he receive an additional allowance of 100 pounds per annum, under clause 29 of the Police Statute (No. 476)."

This hardly sound like suspension for cowardice. Further statements by the Commission make it clear that personal disputes between Hare and another officer (Nicholson) were the cause of so much internal dissention that they both needed to be discharged. Fractious they may have been, but not cowards. Both were reinstated in their former positions by Cabinet action, pending their appointment to the higher position of stipendiary police magistrates (district judges), which was forthcoming for both.

http://www.kellygang.asn.au/documents/N82/82_03_03_Argus1.html

As to Hare's "slight injury" and fleeing from the battlefield, the Wanganui Herald reported:

"In connection with the Kelly gang extermination, we regret to learn that Superintendent Hare has suffered very much from the wound he received in his arm. Lately the symptoms are very unfavourable, the splints and shattered bones not all having come away, and fears were entertained that the hand would have to be amputated! A consultation was held by Drs Youl, Ryan and Fitzgerald, who determined to perform an operation. The arm was cut open, numerous pieces of bone and splints were removed, the shattered bones were chiselled smoothly, and any destroyed bones also removed. All the bones of the arm were found to be shattered by the rifle ball, which entered on the outside and passed slanting right through the bones and flesh. Hopes are now entertained that the hand will not have to be amputated."

His recovery was long, as erysipelas had set in. Since Hare's eventual retirement from the force was accompanied by a disability allowance of 100 pounds a year, it would seem to have been much, much more than merely a 'slight wound'.

It might prove more responsible to include a link to the Commission's actual report, than to rely on interpretations by secondary sources having obvious bias. 67.187.136.140 (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2012

The word 'mitochondrial' is incorrectly spelled mitochonrial.

This can be found underneath the 'Historical and forensic investigation of remains' heading.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mitochondrial

Danielyoung88 (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Red or John?

I'm making the assumption that his father was called John and nicknamed Red, but the article seems to use the two names interchangably without explaination. I'm not going to change it as I don't know that my assumption is correct, but could someone who does know clarify? Talltim (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

   Fixed David.moreno72 (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Victims?

I notice that some facts are inconsistant "Hostage Martin Cherry was found dying..." "...He seems to have been shot by the attacking force"

However a couple of sections later "List of victims killed or wounded by the Kelly Gang" claims that Martin Cherry was shot dead194.74.237.82

(talk) 09:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Family details

The sentence "When Red Kelly died he was survived by his wife and seven offspring, Ned and Dan, James, Mrs Gunn, Mrs Skillion, Kate and Grace." is anachronistic and confusing for readers not already acquainted with the story. Neither Annie nor Maggie were married at the time Red died. Also, I'm pretty sure 'children' is a more neutral term than 'offspring'.

RedDubh (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Surely "first degree murder" cannot be correct.

I suspect that it is inaccurate to say that Ned was charged with "first degree murder". I'm not aware of any divisions of murder into degrees in either Australia or Britain at any time.

The Law Report's transcript of a theatrical reconstruction of the trial, makes no use of "first" or "degree" as adjectives for murder. The Trial of Ned Kelly, and this would be in keeping with my (inexpert) understanding that the most serious crime involving killing someone in Australia is murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinGrant (talk • contribs) 13:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm changing to "Willful Murder" based on this page: http://www.bailup.com/Time%20Line.htm RobinGrant (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The introduction now states "capital murder" and links to a page describing Acts enabled in Great Britain in 1957 and 1966. While Great Britain is undoubtedly the jurisdiction in which Ned Kelly was charged, he couldn't have been charged with an offence written into law some 77 years after his death. RedDubh (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Parentage

The article could say something about Ned's father to provide the link back to Ireland. After talking with local people in Ireland, I was told Ned's father was John "Red" Kelly, born in Moyglass, Fethard. He was sentence to 7 years in Van Diemens Land after stealing two pigs. He was given the nickname "Red" because there were two John Kellys on the ship but he had red hair. The local priest apparently doctored the parish registers in order to remove the association with Ned. TonyP (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

death

Ned Kelly did not die on the cross with his sash, the docter took it and was found in a basement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.255.140 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

? HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2012

The list of alleged victims is clearly wrong or at least displays bias. Citing some amateur historical society doesn't cover the point that deaths inside the Pub during the siege were clearly caused by the Police firing indiscriminately into the building. So how were people like Jones a 'victim' of the Kelly Gang? Unless its intended that this be a moral judgement about Kelly's culpability for everything that was done because 'he started it' or because he opposed the Police who were 'only doing there job'?

Jimbow65 (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And what do you actually want changed? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the heading to remove the bias. It now also matches the title in the original newspaper report. David.moreno72 (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

edit request burial

i am a noob when it comes to using wiki, to many options and to weird a coding language for my liking. give me HTML anyday. anyway new details as to his burial http://www.news.com.au/national/bushranger-ned-kelly-believed-to-be-buried-in-regional-victoria-this-weekend/story-fndo4cq1-1226554778049

worth adding to page as a final chapter in the story?152.91.9.153 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a sensible inclusion and conclusion. That article seems a little speculative, but I heard a descendant of Ned's sister discussing it on radio this morning. It's definitely happening. Let's try to find a reliable source after the event, and use that to help create an addition. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a lot more detail.

"Kelly will be buried at Greta, near Glenrowan in north-east Victoria, where his mother Ellen lies in an unmarked grave. A memorial service will be held on Friday, with the burial on Sunday."

But I still recommend waiting until after the event. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyedits

[From my talk page with responses inline]

In the Ned Kelly armour section, you have a syntax error for a conversion.

Fixed

....For instance, the in the Jerilderie letter, it you seem to have confused the two letters.

I can't see what this refers to. I think my edits were minor. Please clarify.

In the Aaron Sherrit section, you got rid of the famous bit of the policemen hiding under the bed, and you got rid of "You must be drunk, Anton. You know that it's over that way,'.

Restored.

In another section, you got rid of the very famous act when Curnow convinced Ned to let him go.

Restored.

You also got rid of 'the outlaw howled like a wild beast brought to bay, and swore at the police' Again, very famous.

Restored.

You also got rid of what happened to Martin Cherry,

Not really-he died-but I restored some detail.

Then you got rid of ' that they must have killed one another'. This is incredible crucial, and the subject of much controversy..

Restored.

You also got rid of 'After Ned Kelly's capture there was considerable debate over having the armour destroyed,' That is not copy editong, it now starting to become vandalism.

Restored, but really, why would a non-fan care without at least a rehearsal of the two sides' arguments? Also, "vandalism"? Get over yourself.

Then you made a change which reslted in 'Two stolen circular saws iron tacks were tried'. Circular saws and iron tacks are two different things.

Typo. Fixed.

Also plough shares and mould boards are two different things.

I think that remained clear, but I tweaked it. The armour section remains confusing because it ends with a newspaper report which contradicts what came before, using an unrelated stream of evidence.

You have certainly made a mess of the page of one of the most well known Australians. Could you please improve the page in response to the errors which I have highlighted. Once that is done, I will then highlight the other numerous errors which you have caused.

Go for it! Also, this article is way too long. Please consider splitting it so that a casual reader can get the basics without such a big time investment. Lfstevens (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Round 2

What I would like to clarify though is the Jerilderie Letter. I think there needs to be clarification that Ned is famous for two separate letters. The first one was posted to Mr Donald Cameron on 16 Dec 1878. The second, and more famous is the Jerilderie letter, given to Ms Gill on 9 Feb 1879. To make it easier, I suggest that 'Excerpts of the Jerilderie letter given to Ms Gill on 9 Feb 1879' instead of 'Excerpts of the second letter '.

I leave these changes, which my edits didn't affect, to a more knowledgeable editor.

Also, when the police arrived at Glenrowan, they travelled in two trains, a pilot train with a policeman strapped to the front, and the main train, which carried the bulk of passengers, so the term 'trains' needs to be used.

Trains. right.

Also could you put back that Byrne's body was secretly buried by police.

Restored.

Also, could you put pack the heading of Kelly's statement, as now the statement is missing who said it.

Typo

Also, you state that 'armour section remains confusing'. This is all part of the Kelly legend, where fact and fiction have become intertwined, so the many facets of the story needs to be revealed, even if they contradict.

Yes, but the contradication should be acknowledged, not merely included. Again I leave this to a more knowledgeable contributor.

This is partly why the article is so long. He killed 3 police, held up two towns and stole from their banks, and then went down in a final siege with homemade armour. When the Kelly gang was in the area, entire towns would shut down in a 'perfect panic'. FYI, I have been to the actual site of the Glenrowan Inn, which is now just a vacant lot.

The article isn't long because he's famous. It's that way because it includes too much detail for a main article. The detail, e.g., how the armour was constructed, should be factored into separate articles. Australians have every right to ensure that all the details are in the record, but a casual reader is not interested in how many trains there were or whether a minor participant did or didn't say something comical. The one part of the article that warrants more content is that about Kelly's legacy and the extent to which his actions reflect larger historical forces that echo down the years, rather than his individual characteristics. All the more reason to factor the details...

Lfstevens (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article is far too long. Ben Finn (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

---

I know very little of Ned Kelly. I only came to here to read about him after watching the movie. As an outsider, I can tell you that this article need serious technical editing and revision. It is almost unreadable in places. The prose is dense and awkward. It almost needs to be re-written from scratch. The article is far too long. It is more important to tell the narrative of Ned Kelly, than to bombard the reader with every single fact related to him. The story of Ned Kelly's life, which is compelling, is very much obscured by this article. I realize that many of you are passionate about the subject, but preventing copy editing has profoundly detracted from the subject matter.CaperBill (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2013

An addition for the "External Links" section:

• IMDb: Ned Kelly (1970)

Kheldar633 (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. There's already an IMDB link in the article about the movie. RudolfRed (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2013

"Sub-Inspecter" should be spelled "Sub-Inspector" as it is a few lines below the wrong spelling instance CarloA (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Corrected - thanks for pointing this out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2013

Gaol is spealt incorrectly through out the article. The american bastardised spelling is used throughout with the exception of the "old Melbourne Gaol" Gaol not Jail.

Pskelly88 (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit inaccurate to say that "jail" is used throughout the article. I can only find one instance of it, in third paragraph of the lead. I personally agree with you that it should be "gaol" for this article. That's certainly how Kelly's gaolers would have spelt it. I'll change it. Don't think it will offend anyone too much. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Closing request as requested edits have been made already. -- TOW  07:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Gibberish?

Dan then said, trying to trick Fitzpatrick "Here he (Ned) is coming along." While he was pretending to look out of the window for Ned, Dan cornered Fitzpatrick, took the revolver and claimed that he had released Fitzpatrick unharmed. Kelly denied that Fitzpatrick could have tried to take liberties with his sister she would not have stood for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.25.60 (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC) and then fucking hell papened

References

Before this article bloats even further, I think a trend in referencing needs to be discussed. Having used Trove to research Tom Wills – my pet project on Wiki – I realised it's best to avoid citing old newspapers, because each article nearly always gets something wrong – sometimes a lot wrong. It takes a trained historian to sort through all these competing versions of reality to find out what actually happened, or what probably happened. So I think the most thoroughly researched histories of Ned should be used as references instead. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

May I refer you to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

which states ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). " and has a link to this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_English_newspaper_sources

which links to the NLA Trove archive.

So using the NLA Trove archive is within the Wikipedia RS policy. That you disagree with this policy is your prerogative, but to now try and impose your own policy is inappropriate.

Yes, there are errors within the Trove archive, but by using multiple sources, those errors can be minimised. There is also plenty of reliable evidence available when the newspapers reported court cases, and there is also the evidence from the Royal Commission, both of which can be used to cross-reference. The most famous Kelly author, J. J. Kenneally, was a school teacher and not a trained historian, and neither was Ian Jones, who was a TV writer. (Both of which are used as citations, so there is a precedent for using non-trained historians)

So which part of the Ned Kelly page do you think is 'wrong' or 'a lot wrong'? You need to be more specific. David.moreno72 (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going by my experience researching Tom. Using Trove, I could easily construct a biography of Tom that gets everything wrong. That's harder to do using a well-researched biography. There are countless sources in the Trove archive that repeat the same falsehoods about Tom's life, and statements he made can be misquoted in ten or more different ways. Ned's life has been distorted, embellished and mythologised to a far greater extent, perhaps more than any other Australian. For this reason I would trust modern biographies that take a severe academic approach over the more haphazard and unpredictable Trove archive. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but using Trove is within the Wikipedia policy. You are now suggesting to impose your own rules and write your one policy. That is unacceptable. If you don't like Wikipedia policy, than this is not the proper place to discuss it. You still haven't answered my question. Which part of the Ned Kelly page is wrong? David.moreno72 (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I only said it's easy to get stuff wrong with the approach you're taking, especially given how quote-heavy the article is. Sometimes it reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Many of the quotes are from court room witness statements, such as at the trial of Ned Kelly, and the subsequent Royal Commission. If you believe that those involved committed perjury, or the newspapers changed said testimony, then provide the evidence. I also notice that on the Tom Willis page, it references heavily a book by Greg De Moore, who is a doctor of Philosophy. (Not a doctor of History). And what does he use as references? Yep, old newspapers. All I was doing was providing references (following Wikipedia policy) where a 'citation required' tag was introduced, even though it was already referenced. Why someone would introduce citation required tags on something that is already referenced, well I can't answer that, but if they think that to improve the article that it is required, I'm not one to argue. I'm just trying to improve the article and where a citation required tag has been added, provide a citation within the policy of Wikipedia. If you wish to also improve the article with text from published books or from old newspaper articles, both of which are within Wikipedia policy, then by all means, go ahead. But I'm certainly not going to impose my own policy onto you, or anyone else for that matter. If of course any changes are in violation of Wikipedia policy, or don't correctly represent the reference, then of course, it will be reverted.David.moreno72 (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think given the call for additional citations (Aug 2012), the use of original newspaper articles through Trove is quite appropriate. I'm inclined to the view that this article is especially vulnerable to contemporary mythmaking - thus the more bedded-down in sources it is, the better. Of course there are some great books on Ned Kelly - and many are appropriately cited at the bottom of the page. One of the great things about WP is one can see the references and follow them quickly if one wants - online and in books.Nickm57 (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Why repeat the efforts of researchers who have already combed the archive? I haven't seen a featured article that deals with archival evidence in this way. It's more convenient for all if well-researched secondary sources are used instead. Yes, old newspapers are essential in tracking any historical person's life, but like I said, they are prone to error. It takes the dedicated efforts of one or more persons to look at all the evidence and then expunge what doesn't stack up to reality. A lot of modern mythmaking around characters like Tom and Ned is derived from shoddy reports in old newspapers. Tom didn't lose his entire family in the Cullin-la-Ringo massacre, but, amidst the confusion, enough newspapers claimed so that it's been repeated as fact down the years. If you used a modern biography, like Greg's, and not Trove, you wouldn't be susceptible to repeating this error. I don't know enough about Ned to start making contributions to the article, but I do think it's getting out of hand. There's too much detail. Removing "Steele's description" would be a start. Stuff like this shouldn't be reproduced wholesale, but interwoven in an appropriate section. All those subsections could be condensed into a section titled "Last stand at Glenrowan" or something. "Killings at Stringybark Creek" could be condensed into two or three paragraphs. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the paras you mention certainly would benefit by editing - so why not try? And where you come across "shoddy reports from old newspapers" - you should remove them. However, so far, although you've expressed a lack of confidence in C19th newspaper accounts as a WP source, you haven't identified any resulting errors on this page. Nickm57 (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Uralla or Urana

The first paragraph of the Jerilderie section of this article mentions the NSW town of Uralla on a couple of occasions. Uralla is indeed a town in NSW, about 1000km from Jerilderie. I assume that the town in this article should be Urana, NSW, which is in the same geographical area as Jerilderie, Wagga Wagga, and Rutherglen. Urana is mentioned several paragraphs further on in this section. I suggest references to Uralla should be changed to Urana. Njb1969 (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Though that sounds plausible, it is original research. Having said that, there isn't any source cited for Uralla. The paragraph in question was added by User:David.moreno72 back in 2012 [1] - I'll leave a note on his talk page, asking for comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It is NOT original research. In the supplied reference, it stated quite clearly that it was Uralla. During that period, the Kelly gang operated throughout NSW, robbing people.

Here is another reference in two other different papers of the same article stating that it was Uralla, and not Urana, so it was unlikely a typo. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/32737564 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/127654112

And here is a slightly unrelated article mentioning the area. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/34939619

If you have a reference which states that it was Urana that the Kelly Gang went to on their wild goose chase after Sullivan, only then would you be able to change it to Urana. David.moreno72 (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you know the geography of Vic/NSW, you'll realise how ridiculous it is to suggest that they went from Rutherglen to Uralla to Wagga Wagga. That is a 2,000km journey and a route from Rutherglen to Urana to Wagga Wagga is 200km and not much of a diversion from the most direct route between those two towns. The article in question being quoted from the newspaper sources above which mention Uralla were published almost 10 years after Ned Kelly was hung. That column appears to be a story based on an account of the events of the day, but I think should hardly be regarded as a source of encyclopedic truth. Even the title of the article is "TALE" which should be a hint. The author was supposedly from Coonamble, which is about 750km from Rutherglen (but, coincidentally, closer to Uralla). Assuming that a story published a decade later with no corroborating evidence as factual until proven otherwise is silly. Surely the onus should be on corroborating the story mentioning Uralla, not the other way around. Perhaps the whole story of the wild goose chase should be removed from this article as it appears to be just a single version of events published anonymously for entertainment not historical purposes. Njb1969 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2014

Sentences need to make more sense 144.136.179.34 (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Such as? This request will be rejected unless you put specifically what you would like to see changed and what you want it changed to. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014

SuppyCraft (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Victims Killed or Wounded by the Kelly Gang

In the table detailing the victims of the Kelly Gang, Constable Lonigan is listed as Constable Lonergan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.129.191 (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed typo.David.moreno72 (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to tidy up the List of "Victims Killed or Wounded by the Kelly Gang" since a few of the names including the Jones were shot in the shoot-out at Glenrowan accidentally according to material i've read - probably not by the Kelly gang either since Mrs Jones was later charged with helping the Kelly gang (and got off). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.108.233 (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This section is currently named "List of people killed or wounded" which is very unclear. Killed or wounded by whom? As this page is named "Ned Kelly" it infers that they were all killed or wounded by Ned Kelly. Subsequently, have added "Explanatory comments" to table list, as the entries on the list lack meaning without context. Section should be renamed. Perhaps "List of people killed or wounded during the Kelly Outbreak"? Australia1788 (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Fixed.--Aichik (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Irish Australian?

Kelly was neither Irish nor Australian. He was of Irish descent, and neither Australia or Ireland existed as countries at that time. The correct terminology would be to call him British or Victorian, or if neither of these is acceptable, not to use nationality at all. Suggested opening sentence: "Edward "Ned" Kelly (June 1854 or 1855 – 11 November 1880) was a bushranger who operated in the area of the present-day Australian state of Victoria." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.118.113 (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC) And in the box, his place of birth is listed as "Australia", which is blatantly incorrect, unless we're listing continents now.

You're technically correct about the status of the two countries at the time, but Kelly's Irishness is an essential part of his story and cannot be omitted. HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not omitting his Irishness, it's mentioned in the rest of the article, so could you make the edit to the opening sentence and place of birth and death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.118.113 (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

He's definitely not Australian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.107.240 (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you are all being too literal. Check out the intro text to the featured article on Australia:

For at least 40,000 years before the first British settlement in the late 18th century, Australia was inhabited by indigenous Australians, who spoke languages grouped into roughly 250 language groups. After the European discovery of the continent by Dutch explorers in 1606, Australia's eastern half was claimed by Great Britain in 1770 and initially settled through penal transportation to the colony of New South Wales from 26 January 1788.

Australia here means "what eventually became Australia." We can use that too. But I see your points about the usage of modern ethnic terms and will make an adjustment. Not touching the description of his mother though, as I think the reader gets it by that point.--Aichik (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Censored profanity

What's up with the censorship of vulgar words in this article? I'm all for civilized language, but I believe showing the actual words used by these historic figures provides a more complete image of them. Also, as someone who's interested in language in general I'm curious what swear words were used in those times. Censorship in quotations doesn't seem to be the norm on Wikipedia (I could be wrong about that). Is there a "official" policy regarding this? Couldn't find anything in the Help section. Zonder (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that the censoring is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not censored. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree than censoring is inappropriate, but in this instance, it is a different case. Most of the censored transcripts come from court procedures or interviews that were then printed in the newspapers of the time. It was illegal at the time to print swear words, but they were allowed to print a dash in place of the swear word. If anyone is able to retrieve the original documents, I'm sure that we would all be very interested. David.moreno72 (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, it hadn't crossed my mind that the source documents probably are censored. Makes sense. Zonder (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There are sources that have accessed the original court documents, like JJ Kenneally, that give hints to what some of these words were (but as it fit the mores of their time, still somewhat censored). Let's try to use those when we can.--Aichik (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014

Ned Kelly was 26 when he died , not 25 as is listed

Siofanoz (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for pointing that out - with no actual day for his birth these calculations are done manually not automatically - Arjayay (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014

change Superintendent Nicolas to Superintendent Nicolson. And change Nicolas to Nicolson. Source: Check any history book. Superintendent Nicolson is also my Great Great Grandfather. Jngibbs (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - I did "check any history book" - I checked two, which both state that a "Superintendent Nicolas" and a "Superintendent Nicolson" were both on the case.
This book ("Ned Kelly: A short life" by Ian Jones) specifically states that Superintendent Nicolas was "taken into the confidence of Hare and Nicolson" so it is clearly not a typo, as one is specifically referring to the other.
Moreover, the incident referring to Nicolas in our article also refers to Nicolas, not Nicolson, in that book. - Arjayay (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

DOB issue

Ned Kelly's date of birth is actually recorded by the State Library of Victoria as June 1855, 124.185.78.113 (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Photo of capture log

Love some of your work on the page David - but the "capture log" photo troubles me. Surely this isn't the actual log? If it was a log in 1880 - I would have thought it highly unlikely that this is it? Australian hardwood generally doesn't last that long in the open - surely. Or is there some actual evidence it is the log? Also, given the reproduction armour on display, might the photo be better placed in the "cultural effect" section. What do you think? Cheers Nickm57 (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Rise to notoriety of "Ah Fook"

The section of "Rise to notoriety" contains references to an individual "Ah Fook" and this is clearly some form of joke made by some contributor. The "reference" given leads to a webpage with a picture of a closely related "Ah Choo". please consider removing if no other evidence of Ah Fook's existence can be located. 58.111.67.150 (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a clever joke, it seems. It's gone, but hopefully not forgotten. Thanks for picking it up. HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the Ah Fook incident with a very reliable reference and expanded it considerably as it is very relevant regarding police views of Ned. Wayne (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There is still a problem with the section "Rise to notoriety" because the text says that Ah Fook said that Ned Kelly attacked him with a bamboo stick. Yet in the court documents, Ah Fook says Ned Kelly attacked him with a stick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.166.34.112 (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2015

121.217.49.187 (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Born June, 1855

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
Please read Note 1 at the foot of the article, which explains that even he didn't know how old he was. - Arjayay (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2016

Please change 'Kelly replied "I will go a little further than that, and say I will see you there when I go."' to 'Kelly replied "I will go a little further than that, and say I will see you there where I go."' If you check the source on note 143 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/60622639 the original text says 'where', not 'when'. Aningunsitioperoquesealejos (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Already done --allthefoxes <sup>(Talk)</sup> 21:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Footnote goes to a dead link and the subject matter truely bears no connection to Ned Kelly

Kelly has also been referred to as "Australia's Che Guevara", while his image has inspired generations of artists and film-makers.[196]

196 a b Imagining Ned: Exploring the Truth and Myth Behind Australia's Che Guevara by Fiona Gruber, The Guardian, April 1, 2015

If you search the writers name and the publisher you can find the article. Basically a puff piece about the opening of the Bendigo Art Gallery in central Victoria.

As far as being referred to as "Australia's Che Guevara" it was written in the opening sentance and no where in the body of the article support that anyone refers to Ned Kelly as Che Guevara except the author of this article. I don't believe the Che was influenced by Ned and Ned definitely wasn't influenced by Che. If anything Che would be "Cubas' Ned Kelly" but that doesn't fit the author's view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.221.85 (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2016

Mel42002 (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC) yewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww suh dude

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Datbubblegumdoe<sup>[talk – contribs]</sup> 00:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Primary Sources

So I see that this article is tagged, that it relies too much on Primary Sources. Does any one have any ideas on how to address this? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Ronson (talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

As i understand it the only Primary Source related to Ned Kelly would be the Jerilderie Letter. Am I wrong? If there are no objections I will wait a little and then remove the tag. This article seems well sourced from newspapers and books. Michael Ronson (talk)

Large swathes of copyrighted material

I believe this articles tag is in error, it comes not from primary sources, but from large swathes of a book written by Kenneally. The writing must be altered to reflect wikipedias purpose and aims. Michael Ronson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Final Paragraph NPOV

The ending section of this article has a glowing quote from a Historian regarding Kelly and I added a counter quote to balance the POV and make the section more neutral however it was deleted by this edit.

Is there a legitimate reason to not have a balanced ending to this article? Michael Ronson (talk)

The referenced text I added was . "Outrage at the police for failing to protect the public was widespread and in the Bulletin, 31 December 1966, Malcolm Ellis described Ned Kelly as

One of the most cold-blooded, egotistical, and utterly self-centred criminals who ever decorated the end of a rope in an Australian jail'[2]</ref>

T o create a NPOV for this article the fact that most people in the colony despised Ned Kelly must be presented.Michael Ronson (talk)

The "glowing quote" is from the leader of the pursuit and capture of the Kelly Gang, Superintendent Hare, not a "Historian". It relates to the section topic. Your quote does not. - HappyWaldo (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Which section do you think the quote should go in? Michael Ronson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Kelly murdering Lonigan in "Cold blood"

After an entire page of glowing statements about how Kelly was nice to hostages etc, there seems to be consternation that his murder of Lonigan be labeled "cold blooded". Virtually of the references state this was the case. is there a reason it should not be described this way? Michael Ronson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a value judgment. Give an objective account based on the best available evidence and the reader can make up his/her own mind. - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The Kelly Outbreak

While I was reading the section in this article about the murder of Aaron Sherritt , by Dan Kelly and Joe Byrne, it became patently obvious that this biographical article should be split up into the sections. The murder of Sherritt has little to do with Ned and should be in the Joe Byrne (Bushranger) article and the Dan Kelly (Bushranger) article. There should be an article called The Kelly Gang where most of this biographical article should be. I'd like to hear peoples input on this idea. Michael Ronson (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Kelly

I have included referenced material regarding Patrick Kelly however it was reverted. Is the history of his grandfather not relevant to this article? Michael Ronson (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The text was reference from | this article which was already part of the reference list Michael Ronson (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"Is the history of his grandfather not relevant to this article?" Sure, but not Patrick, because he didn't exist. Ned's grandfather was Thomas Kelly. If you're going to include information on Ned's grandparents, or on anything else for that matter, make sure it's from a reliable source. - HappyWaldo (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The reliable source has been in this article for years and other references using the "West Australian" newspaper are in abundance on Wikipedia. If you can find a source that states Ned's grandfathers name was Thomas I'm all for changing it to that. Until then WP:RS dictates that we use the sources that the we have, and the sources that we have clearly state that Neds grandfather was named Patrick Michael Ronson (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It astounds me that someone who doesn't know Ned's grandfather's name, or the reason for Ned's father's transportation to Australia, or about the financial difficulties he faced as a selector, would feel qualified to write on these matters. It's difficult to assume good faith when you have made your negative bias towards the subject abundantly clear through your edits. You seem to calibrate many of your edits in a way that paints the subject in the worst light and from the worst angle using a dubious interpretation of the evidence—even unreliable evidence. The West Australian article is riddled with falsehoods. This is the problem with relying on Trove. Referencing old newspapers, it would very easy to construct a complete biography of Kelly that gets literally everything very wrong. Kelly is a highly mythologised historical figure, and it is only in the last couple of decades that many of these myths have been conclusively debunked through the dedicated research of historians. Why not cross check the West Australian article before referencing it? Does "Patrick Kelly" turn up in other Trove articles? (I checked, he does not). What about on Google Books? What do trained historians and scholars have to say? What is the consensus on certain events in Kelly's life? If there is no general consensus, then what are the different ways these events have been understood, interpreted and reconstructed using the best available evidence? I am going to remove the references to Patrick Kelly, and I would ask that before you make anymore edits to this page, you to read at least one recently published, well-reviewed Kelly biography and familiarise yourself with the story. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2016

it says his name is ned its intact edward but his nickname was ned 122.106.173.193 (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The first three words of the article are "Edward "Ned" Kelly". Jenks24 (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

25 bullet dents in his armour?

Exactly how do we know that? Is there are source?Nickm57 (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Frank Clune's Ned Kelly's Last Stand: The Life and Times of Australia's Ironclad Outlaw, reads on page 171: "When his armour was examined, it was seen that there were 25 dents in the steel plates, made by bullets. There were eight marks on the breastplate, five on the helmet, three on the shoulders, and nine on the backplate." I'm not sure if the number of dents are brought up in a more recently published source. - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

There certainly are bullet marks on Ned's armour, and some are identified as being from bullets fired by Martini-Henry rifles. But given that the proper arrangement of the gang's armour was only made in 2002, Clune's comments from the early '60s should be used with caution. That is, unless there is a more recent source. Nickm57 (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point. 25 does seem to be excessive for the current set. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016

you should discusses what and how he dresses like how did he do his hair or how long his fingers were

2001:8003:2184:B700:C166:2A70:3BBC:2AC5 (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, why? — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Replacing recently excised sentence

On 28 December, David.moreno72 excised the following sentence (last sentence in first paragraph of "Family background and early life" section) for the reason that it was "unsourced":

"He soon became notorious as a cattle thief and his house was a rendezvous where criminals of all kinds hatched their plots."

In the reference cited at the end of the paragraph of which the excised sentence was a part, I found the following:

"...and was enabled in time to purchase a small freehold at Beveridge. He here became noted as an expert :::cattle-stealer, and his place as the resort of criminals of the very worst class."

Perhaps David.moreno72 has a quibble with "soon", but otherwise, the reference matches the article.

I'm replacing the excised sentence back into its original position in the article.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible typo

3rd last paragraph in the section "Stringybark Creek police murders". In the last sentence of this paragraph, should it not read "he reported to" instead of "be reported to".

Typo fixed as you suggested.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Kenneally

JJ Kenneally's name and the publication year of his famous work (The Inner History of the Kelly Gang and Their Pursuers) appear multiple times in the Notes. However, as best I can tell, there is no full citation to the book anywhere in those Notes. Irish Melkite (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2017

Meep.bot (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK <sub>Discuss</sub> 03:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Past Patterns - Future Directions: Victoria Police and the problem of corruption and serious misconduct Victorian government printer Feb 2007 Session 2006-7 Pp no 4 needs to be added to the 'The Commission's work led to reprimands, demotions, or dismissal for a number of members of the Victorian police, including senior staff.' line.

Here are the more relevant contents of that work: "The Royal Commission into the pervasive mismanagement of the hunt (the Longmore Commission) shattered a number of police careers in addition to that of Chief Commissioner Standish. Widespread corruption was exposed", and "In the end, the Longmore Commission’s findings about the Force were ambivalent. It came down hard on numerous police, censuring them for incompetence, impromptitude, rivalry between senior officers, errors of judgement, indolence, misleading superiors and, in particular, it was critical of the senior superintendents."--2606:A000:7D44:100:E9F4:F46C:4C93:4D0A (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of images from Ned Kelly page

Hello HappyWaldo. Can you please stop arbitrarily removing mages from Ned Kelly page. Per WP:DR, can we try and reach a compromise? Instead of deleting images, why not make the improvements per WP:STACKING (Which is not a policy, but a guide). In regards to having 'too many images', can you point me to the policy that states that 34 is the limit for images in a page. Thank-you David.moreno72 09:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. There's nothing arbitrary about my removal of the capture monument image. I have stated my reasons. Why do we need another image of the capture site? What is it adding to the article? How is it helping the reader? Based on the article size, and the size of each section, I think 34 images is about right. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi HappyWaldo. You have stated in the edit summaries

'WP:STACKING i think there's enough images on this page'

'four images are literally stacking, and bleeding into other sections. overload and looks amateur. 34 images in article body is enough'

'now it's squashing text, and still bleeding (on this laptop at least). we alrady have two images of capture site, and again, 34 in body'

but nowhere have you stated any policy breaches, and WP:STACKING only applies when there is large amounts of blank space created, which is not applicable in case. Are you are to link to the MOS that states that images should not be 'bleeding into other sections', as I cannot find it. I have also attempted to remedy any of your perceived issues, per WP:STACKING, and you are still reverting the image. Per WP:DR and in the spirit of compromise, what about moving the images in the Conflagration section down? How about deleting some of the images that you have added since you think that 34 should be the hard limit? (Could you also link to the MOS that states that 34 is the hard limit please?) I have tried the suggestion of 'Alternating left and right' per WP:STACKING, so what about 'Co-aligning' (like in the Stringybark Creek police murders section), 'Galleries' or 'Forcing a break'. As you can see there are a myriad of ways to add images that comply with WP:STACKING, so which one of these would you be happy with? May I also suggest that instead of simply deleting the image, that you yourself could re-add the image in a method that you find suitable?

In response to your questions,

'Why do we need another image of the capture site?' - The image that I am adding is an actual photo of the historical site as it stands today, whereas the existing image is only a drawing of the capture. As it stands, currently there is no image of the actual capture site.

'What is it adding to the article?' - The image shows the actual historical site, without having to go into detail of describing it.

'How is it helping the reader?' - The capture site is part of the Glenrowan Heritage Precinct, which is on the National Heritage List, and it is important for readers who are unable to visit the site to be able to view a tangible and important part of Australia history.

I look forward to your compromise. Thank-you David.moreno72 12:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

An image should correspond with the text it's illustrating. When an image bleeds into another section as a result of stacking, it no longer sits next to the relevant text, and looks sloppy/amateurish. As for capture site images, there's also the photo of the police and Aboriginal trackers posing at the "Kelly tree". A third image in my opinion is overkill. If there's a place for the monument image, it would be at Glenrowan, or a separate article on the siege of Glenrowan, list of Kelly-related monuments or something. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you HappyWaldo for your comments. Unfortunately they do not constitute a reasonable compromise, so per WP:DR I am requesting the assistance of a third party. Thank-you David.moreno72 08:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

I would say that there should be this other image, because it would add a real picture. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the photo in the Capture and release of hostages section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus of those expressing opinions below is in favor of including the picture of the monument and nothing in the Image Use Policy or other policies or guidelines would prevent this consensus from being implemented. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Should the "Capture and release of hostages" section contain a photograph of the capture monument? David.moreno72 07:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Add it. Im of the view that a mix of contemporary and historic images is useful. But the article currently has a fairly heavy weighting towards C19th newspaper sketches which should be reviewed. Nickm57 (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Because it's a 19th century story and the newspaper illustrations do a fantastic job of illustrating it. Nonetheless seven (20%) of the images are contemporary. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. We already have two images of the site of Kelly's capture: one is an illustration, the other a photograph. The illustration depicts the exact moment of Kelly's capture, and the photograph shows his pursuers posing at the same spot. In my opinion these can't be dispensed with. A third image does not help to illuminate anything new (making it mere decoration), and leads to clutter by pushing other images into unrelated sections. There are many aspects of the Kelly story that could be illustrated, but given that this is an article and not a repository of images, only absolutely essential images should be used. An image of a one-sentence plaque attached to a small rock does not belong in this category. Also David.moreno72's all caps transcription is pointless, ugly, and violates MOS:RELTIME by saying that the monument was "recently" added. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Add it. Why not. WP as a whole is very ugly. The more images the better. scope_creep (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Adding the image does not convolute or "clutter" the page. At this time, arguments opposing its inclusion are not convincing enough to remove. Meatsgains (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Another point: the monument itself is not notable. I can't find any other trace of it online. The plaque doesn't say who or when it was erected (unlike proper monuments such as the well-known police memorial in Mansfield), and there isn't even an entry for it on Monument Australia. It's simply a marker for tourists, there are dozens more throughout Glenrowan, a town stuffed with cringe-inducing Kelly kitsch. Should we add all this crap too, just because it exists and someone took a photo of it? - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Summoned by bot. I don't see the harm of adding another photo to this article, no matter what it shows, unless it is irrelevant and the one mentioned appears to be relevant. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Coming from RfC page. It is relevant and informative. There is no reason to withhold the photo from the Wikipedia readers. LK (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - The image is of relevance to the article and doesn't clutter the page up at all, I see no valid reason to remove. –Davey2010<sup>Talk</sup> 17:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning towards oppose Bot summoned. The article is well illustrated, and the image in question doesn't seem to add much: a stone with a placard saying "here is where Ned Kelly fell and was captured on this date." In lieu of the current images, I don't think the image in question adds anything of note or use, but I don't think it would clutter the article. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
• Either way is fine There are a lot of illustrations. Another won't add anything. Darx9url (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Bot summoned. Searching Google for "the seriously wounded edward" kelly gives zero hits for the inscription on the plaque. Per WP:IUP "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article"; my personal opinion is that a photo of an obscure plaque fails IUP. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Just for future reference, there is no mention in MOS:IMAGES or WP:IUP that an image cannot 'bleed' into other sections. Image 'bleeding' is extremely common on pages, and is also already present on the Ned Kelly page. If one considers image 'bleeding' should be a new policy or guideline, have a read of WP:PROPOSAL. Also per MOS:IMAGES, generally an image should be in the relevant section, but it does allow the placement of images elsewhere, as long as it is not confusing, I quote 'An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the point in the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this will puzzle the reader.' Wikipedia is full of images that are not in the relevant section, including the Ned Kelly page, but in this case it does not apply as the image of the capture monument is relevant to the capture and release of hostages section as it is a monument to the very significant spot. Also, per WP:NNC there is no requirement that article content, including images, or the subject of photos, itself be notable or part of a database or not be of interest to tourists. Also WP:NOTREPOSITORY is generally designed to prevent the creation of articles that are just images, and I quote 'Photographs or media files with no accompanying text'. There is no mention in WP:NOTREPOSITORY, nor MOS:IMAGES or WP:IUP that 'only absolutely essential images should be used'. If one would like to make 'only absolutely essential images should be used' a policy or guideline, I would suggest reading WP:PROPOSAL. Also, per WP:GID It's generally regarded that when there is a copyright, privacy, moral or vandalism issue that an image should be deleted. A perceived violation of a how-to guide, such as WP:STACKING, which is not a policy or guideline, is not a valid reason for removal. Also, there is no policy or guideline that states that there is a limit of 34 images for an article. Given the length and breadth of the Ned Kelly article, and the wealth of available images, there is still plenty of scope to add at least a dozen or more images. There are quite a few notable photos of the Glenrowan scene and the gangs armour by Oswald Thomas Madeley, photos of the Stringybark Creek victims (correctly labeled) and other policemen, photos of the Kelly family and their relatives etc. All very relevant. If one considers that there is not enough room, try fixing the problem without resorting to deletion. There is always the possibility of creating numerous galleries or other fixes. No article should be considered as 'sacrosanct' or 'owned' by any particular editor, and the removal of relevant images, added in good faith, should generally only occur if there is a clear and unambiguous policy violation, not just because an editor doesn't like it. Thank you David.moreno72 11:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• David.moreno72 What images are in question? I see there are images already in the text, and don't know which images you want to add in. Or is this about whether we should remvoe images? thanks. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi d.g. L3X1. this edit shows the image that is intended to be added. Thanks David.moreno72 13:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"Image 'bleeding' is extremely common on pages" ... "Wikipedia is full of images that are not in the relevant section" Yes, other stuff exists. Doesn't make it desirable. I didn't say there was a policy limit of 34 images per article, only that the number was 'about right' for this article—an already oversized, overly detailed article. If an effort was made to condense material and remove fancruft (the essay-long Jerilderie section for example could easily be halved), then there would be even less room for images. By cramming in more images for no other reason than because we can, the situation will only get worse, and most readers won't bother going through it. I maintain that only essential images should be used, and that the obscure, unimpressive tourism marker is not one of them. - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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.

Article too long

Can I suggest that the 'Remains and graves' section, and possibly also the 'Legacy' section, be split off to their own articles, leaving a section heading, hatnote link, and summary paragraph behind? LK (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think the issue of WP:EXCESSDETAIL should be addressed first. The article has no sense of proportion. Relatively minor incidents, such as Kelly's scuffle with a Chinese man ("Rise to notoriety" section), are given multiple paragraphs. No one but a devoted Kelly buff cares to know that much (WP:FANCRUFT). This is one of the reasons why I oppose the addition of more images. It will only bloat the article further. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC about adding photo's in the armour section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus of those expressing opinions below is in favor of including the what's been labeled as image 2 of the armor and nothing in the Image Use Policy or other policies or guidelines would prevent this consensus from being implemented. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Should the "Armour" section contain rare and historically significant photographs of the Kelly Gang armour recovered from the hotel and a policeman wearing the Kelly Gang armour? David.moreno72 05:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• For reference, the images in question are image1 and image2. Image2 was actually a previous request on the talk page. It's the closest photo to the 'money shot'. Because it's such an iconic and rare photo, it is used in Ned Kelly websites [3] and [4] and has been featured in journals [5] and newspapers [6] [7] [8], [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Currently there is no photo in the Ned Kelly armour section of the armour being worn, or the armour of the other gang members. David.moreno72 07:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• No. The page already has three images of Kelly's armour (four if you include the frame from The Story of the Kelly Gang). It's well illustrated and the two proposed photos do not fill in any important gap. In fact, they show armour that is not Ned's. As a compromise, I have added the photos to the appropriate pages, namely Joe Byrne and Dan Kelly. - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Perhaps Image 2 (Summoned by bot) I think the 2 pictures in the article already show the armor quite well. Image2 has a person standing in it, just incase the armor int he display wasn't clear enough tot he reader on how it was worn.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence(

To be fair, the "strange apparation" image in the last stand section already makes it clear how the armour was worn, complete with cloak (which is lacking in the photo of the policeman clad in Byrne's armour). - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to sign, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Include image 2 in section regarding his 'last stand', replace current illustration of armor with photo 1 --‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador <sup>ᐐT₳LKᐬ</sup> 10:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Definitely include image 2, would prefer to include both. Don't see a problem with more photos actually. LK (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Include both currently the article is in no danger of falling down HappyWaldo's slippery slope of catastrophes, where photos represent an improvement to the article they should be added, and here they would be an improvement. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

You forgot this image in the cultural impact section. The actor is wearing an authentic suit of the Kelly gang's armour. Also do you have a source on the photo's "iconic" status? Or is this an example of the misuse and overuse of the word? - HappyWaldo (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I stand corrected. (Hence the edit to my introduction.) The photo is an actor wearing Joe Byrne's armour, but a Google Image search reveals that it does not have the same status as image2. There is no 'source' for the 'iconic' status for the photo, but it is often used in a Ned Kelly article in the press, like many of the other photos in the article. There is certainly no policy violation, nor an enforced limit to how many similar photos can be included. It's just a rehash of the argument on the previous RfC. For instance, on the Albert Einstein page there 18 photos of him. One cannot just make up rules and arbitrarily impose them on Wikipedia. David.moreno72 09:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Since there's no limit, why not add 1000+ Kelly-related images to the page? Really. Sandwich the entirety of the text between two unbroken columns of multi-image boxes, and stack the rest of the images in galleries at the top of each section. Make the galleries uncollapsible with a fixed size of 500px to ensure the reader gets the fully Kelly experience. Sound good? No? Then there is a limit. If 30 images can do the same job as 300 images, or a better job, then that in my opinion is worth pursuing. And if the armour is already well illustrated with quality images (it is), I see no reason to pile on more. - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Given that the article already contains images of Ned Kelly's armour, I am not sure what is gained by adding pictures of different armour, as famous as that armour may be. There is also a photograph of what is apparently Kelly's armour being worn, even if it isn't in the section on "armour". And, at least on my screen, there's not any more room in that section for more images; any added photo of the policeman wearing armour still wouldn't be "in the Ned Kelly armour section" (at least, not without displacing the existing images of Kelly's armour...) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

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.

/* Stringybark Creek police killings */ experts disagree whether the killings were murder or self-defence.

experts disagree whether the killings were murder or self-defence and there is evidence such as that they carried weapons far in excess of normal police work as well straps for dead bodies and that they bragged that they would kill him that indicate it was self-defence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.79.199 (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The disagreeing experts are...?Nickm57 (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Broken citations

This article had a Notes and References section. In the notes there were inline short citations supported by long citations in the References section (as is standard and described in both WP:CITE and WP:LAYOUT. Some (all?) of of the long citations that supported the short citations were removed with this edit: Revision as of 09:16, 8 January 2015. I am going to fix that change. -- PBS (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC about replacing the current photo of the Mansfield police

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to use an updated photomontage. David.moreno72 06:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Clockwise from upper left: Lonigan, Ned Kelly, Kennedy, Dan Kelly, McIntyre, Scanlon.

Monument to the policemen killed at Stringybark, erected in Mansfield in 1880

Portraits of Constable Lonigan, Sergeant Kennedy and Constable Scanlon, murdered by the Kelly gang in the Wombat forest.

Monument to the policemen killed at Stringybark, erected in Mansfield in 1880

HappyWaldo would like to replace the current photo of the Mansfield police murdered by the Kelly Gang and the photo of Constable Thomas McIntyre in the Stringybark Creek police murders section with an illustration montage. Which one should the section include? David.moreno72 06:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Montage A much superior illustration. --Pete (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Photos Why have a montage, when you can have the real photographs. scope_creep (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The illustrations are more photorealistic than the photographs (see this side by side comparison), which are in fact heavily degraded reproductions, probably lifted from an old book or newspaper. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• As a point of reference, I have added the multi image box as it appeared in my edit that David.moreno72 reverted. I think the proposal is neater in appearance and of a much higher quality. - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• There seems to be some concern about the quality of the photographs. Here is an updated version that I have created which is a photomontage of the original Carte de Visite's. It is higher resolution and much higher quality. I would suggest that this will be the version included. Also there is a claim that the photos are 'probably lifted from an old book or newspaper'. It is in fact the illustration montage which has been lifted from a newspaper, but the origin of the photo is not really a relevant point. I believe that where an original photo exists it is preferable than an artist's illustration of the same photo. In addition, the illustration montage also includes a redundant and inaccurate illustration of Ned Kelly. It can be seen in the boxing pose image in the 'Horse theft, assault and imprisonment' section that at the time of the murders Ned had grown his iconic long beard. Of course, where no photo exists and there is only an artists illustration then it should be chosen, but this is not the case in this instance. To remove any appearance of bias or preferential treatment, I have also added the multi image box with the updated photomontage for easy comparison, although it's not the presentation that up for discussion, but rather the image itself. David.moreno72 01:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I am happy with David.moreno72's new photo montage and think it worthy of inclusion in the article. This Rfc can be closed. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ned Kelly. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023180428/http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/walksandtrails_historytrail_bluestoneseawall.htm to http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/walksandtrails_historytrail_bluestoneseawall.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this date correct"?

THe article states, "" including a 1963 interview with his brother Jim,"" However, all the dates surrounding suggest that this brother would be well over 100 years old in 1963... Is this feasible?

Someone more knowledgeable might corroborate or at least cite the interview.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F8E0:6BB0:ADF9:8FF8:3053:8908 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi 2600:1700:F8E0:6BB0:ADF9:8FF8:3053:8908. You are indeed correct. Jim died in December 1946 and so a 1963 interview with him could not have taken place. The reference states

'Kelly family tradition said Ned was born 'at the time of the Eureka Stockade', an event which occurred in December 1854. (Paddy and Charles Griffiths quoting Ned's brother, Jim, interview, 1963)' 

The Griffiths were the decedents of Grace Kelly, Ned's younger sister. She married Edward Albert Griffiths. If you, or someone else would like to suggest how the wording should be changed, that would be great. Otherwise, if no one objects, I will make the correction. Thanks. David.moreno72 04:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ned Kelly. 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:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20090514171835/http://www.ansto.gov.au/nuclear_information/nuclear_facts/the_kelly_gang to http://www.ansto.gov.au/nuclear_information/nuclear_facts/the_kelly_gang

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of my edit adding information about the Queensland police trackers

A contingent of Queensland Police Trackers were sent to Victoria to help in the hunt for the Kelly Gang in 1879. The Trackers along with Queensland and Victorian police officers pose in Benalla Police Paddock. Back Row L-R: Senior Constable Tom King (Standing); Troopers Jimmy, Hero and Barney and Victorian Police Superintendent J. Sadlier. Front Row L-R: Queensland Sub-Inspector Stanhope O’Connor, Troopers Johnny and Jack and Victoria Police Commissioner, Captain Frederick Charles Standish (hands in pockets)

Group at the Kelly Tree

In the spirit of WP:BRD, I would ask for broader discussion of my recent edit (adding reliably-cited information about the request for Queensland police trackers under Stanhope O'Connor and a photograph of the group) which was reverted with the edit summary "does not need its own section (sections should be at the very least a paragraph long. this is two sentences), and we already have a photo showing aboriginal trackers in the "fire and aftermath" section". Putting aside the question of where to add the information (happy to add it wherever thought best) I added this information because basically it's information not in the article and without it the existing article doesn't entirely make sense. For example, the sentence "Seven Aboriginal trackers involved in the siege were each awarded £50, but their money was given to the Victorian and Queensland governments for safekeeping" begs the question "what has the Qld Govt got to do with this story?". Similarly a person called simply O'Connor pops up in the description of the final siege but his role/presence is unexplained. Given these events occurred before Federation and even after Federation our police forces remain disjoint to this day, I can't imagine that the average reader would be expecting the involvement of the Queensland Govt/Police in capture of Ned Kelly especially as the Kelly Gang were never mentioned as ever being in Queensland. However, as it actually happened, the Victorian Government called on the Queensland Govt to provide a contingent of trackers (it seems Queensland had a great reputation for trackers at the time) and that team led by O'Connor was involved in the hunt for the Kellys for 15 months including being there at the final siege and capture. So I don't see why it is unreasonable to add mention of this Queensland contingent into the article; I feel it provides additional information and makes the existing text more understandable and I could welcome other people's views on the matter. Regarding the justification to reject the photo I added (upper photo here) being "we already have a photo showing aboriginal trackers" (see the lower photo), I would point out that if we can only have one photo of trackers (is there some MOS quota?), then I think the photo I added is superior as it identifies every person in the photo by name and it comes from the Queensland Police Museum so I think we can be fairly confident about the information and provenance. However, the existing photo (lower photo here) has a caption in the article saying "Police and Aboriginal trackers pose in front of the Kelly Tree" but when one looks at the file on Commmons, there is no caption apart from "Group at the Kelly Tree" and when you click through the source at the Victorian State Library, again we find the title "Group at the Kelly Tree" and then click through to its metadata still says "Group at the Kelly Tree" without further elaboration, so there is no statement saying these are police and trackers nor any identification of the individuals. Are they really police and trackers? (OK, I think they probably are because some of them can be identified by looking at the photo I added to the article, but the provenance as provided isn't saying so). Personally as the photos were placed in different sections of the article illustrating different phases of the hunt for the Kelly Gang (the one I added was in association with the March 1879 call to Qld for help during the phase of the search taking place in Benalla, the existing one is much later in the article), I think both photos can co-exist in the article, but if we really have to choose, I think there's a lot to be said for a photo that identifies and puts a face to a number of people mentioned in the article rather than an unidentified group of people. Again, I welcome wider comment. Kerry (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"it's information not in the article and without it the existing article doesn't entirely make sense" A whole lot of this article doesn't entirely make sense because it lacks any cohesive narrative, omits important details (such as trackers), highlights trivial details, and is just a bunch of jumbled together bare bones statements drawn from 19th century newspaper articles which very often contain errors. I've trimmed some of it down (this article definitely has length issues), added more secondary sources, and tried to get an engaging narrative going, but there's still plenty of work to be done. As for trackers, I think they should be covered in the "Reward increase and disappearance" section, for chronological reasons (they were brought down after the Jerilderie raid). Also I think the "Glenrowan affair" section should open with an "Initial planning" subsection, which covers the gang's plans and motivations. This would include the trackers, as Kelly said he wanted to derail the train to get rid of the trackers in one fell swoop. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021

Replace "Leigh Oliver" with "Leigh Olver".

2600:2B00:8F15:EC00:604C:8E29:1C4E:1D44 (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done ◎ | melecie | t 14:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliable citation needed

in Note A of the article, it claims that Ned Kelly thought that he was 28 when he was hanged. I just want to ask, is there a reliable source that proves this? Thanks. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding the "citation needed" tag on the source, but i thought that this was better to do instead. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Realmaxxver. Here is your citation. "That is where I was born, about twenty-eight years ago. Now, I am passing through it, I suppose, to my doom" http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article196695949 Thank you David.moreno72 10:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Just added the source there; thanks again. Realmaxxver (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

Hello all

I have significantly expanded this section. I have added a subsection on The Ned Kelly Myth because the existing article didn’t explain, especially to non-Australian readers, why Ned Kelly has become an enduring Australian symbol. I have also expanded the sub-section on Cultural Impact and added citations where necessary. I have added a sub-section on Controversy over Political Legacy to provide more balanced information on this topic. Happy to discuss. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Royal Commission and aftermath

Hello all

I have renamed this sub-heading to better reflect its contents. I have added content and removed some unsourced content. I have moved the discussion of the social bandit thesis to the Political Controversy section. Happy to discuss.--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Family background and early life

Hello all

I have rewritten this section. I have removed or corrected information which was inadequately sourced and replaced it with more reliable information. I have mainly used Corfield’s Ned Kelly Encyclopaedia as the source. I have put the information into a more logical order and added more information about the Kellys' early years in Greta. Happy to discuss.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Rise to notoriety

Hello all

I have summarised some less important events to make the article more readable. I have added information to some more important events and corrected some errors. I have added a sub-section on the "Whitty larceny" which makes subsequent events clearer. Happy to discuss.--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Stringybark Creek police murders

Hello all

I have replaced the account of the Stringybark Creek police killiings which was based on outdated and unreliable sources: namely Kenneally’s 1929 book and contemporary newspapers. I have replaced it with a shorter account based on modern scholarship and have tried to stick to the bare essentials. Where necessary, I have indicated the major differences between the accounts of Kelly and McIntyre. Happy to discuss.--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Jerilderie raid

Hello all

I have replaced the account of the Jerilderie raid which was based on outdated and unreliable sources: namely Kenneally’s 1929 book and contemporary newspapers. I have replaced it with an account based on modern scholarship and have tried to stick to the bare essentials. I have also cut some detail from the sub-section on the Jerilderie Letter which is already in the article or in the main article about the Jerilderie Letter. Happy to discuss. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)