Talk:St Johns Anglican Church Precinct

Future of this page

In previous revisions of this topic I suggested a way of improving the page though discussion and collaboration. While waiting for a response I found major edits and snide remarks directed at me. I guess the consensus is to reject my offer and thoughts. This is fine with me. I will still contribute when I have time, but nothing major. I have deleted the brainstorming info I created.Fj42 (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

State heritage listing

Hi, I am the person who nominated the St Johns Anglican Church Precinct for the NSW SHR and the Australian National Heritage List. As part of the project I added the Heritage Section to the Camden Wiki page. (I am also a member of the Camden Historical Society which has just created a working group to promote the nomination of some part of the Macarthur Legacy for inclusion on the Australian National Heritage List.) I have undone your last set of changes to the Camden wiki page to reflect the content of the SHR and local knowledge. I think it important to acknowledge Camden Park House & Gardens are no longer attached to Camden Park Estate and Belegenny Farm. They are physically separate, have different owners and are operated separately. This is reflected by their individual listings in the SHR. Also, I think it is important to understand the St Johns Anglican Church Precinct and the St John's the Evangelist Church building are not the same thing. Precinct is remnant of the original Macarthur gifts. The Church is only one small part of the Precinct. I had started on a wiki page for the St Johns Anglican Church Precinct, but you have beaten me to it, good work! The problem I found is the Heritage Conservation Management Plan contains many errors and omissions. I corrected the pertinent ones in the documents accompanying my SHR nomination. Over the next little would like to add corrections (with references) to your wiki page. Do you want to work with me on this or is it ok for me to modify the page? There is a great deal of local community interest the precinct at present. The local church is planning to sell over 60% of the precinct for development (aged care facility), this plan is not popular with the community. Fletcher User:Fj42 10:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fj42: Thanks. If I can make some humble suggestions:

1. Please sign your edits on user talk pages. You can do this using four tildes; usually located to the left of the 1 key and holding SHIFT. This time stamps your edits.
2. Please provide wikilinks to your edits to make it easy for me to refer to your edits. For example, this edit here is pertinent in summarising that the edits you made to Camden, New South Wales were in fact made in error and reverted.
3. You reverted all my corrections to the Camden, New South Wales page, instead of reverting/correcting those that were erroneous.
4. If you're not a regular Wikipedia editor it is often better to commence discussion (as you have done above) BEFORE erroneously reverting an experienced editor's revisions.
5. If you plan on editing Wikipedia on a regular basis, I encourage you to register as a user. Your edits will carry some more favour by regular editors as you become a member of the Wikipedia 'family'.

So, having got those things off my chest, I would be pleased to assist you. Well done for your successful nomination of the Precinct for the New South Wales State Heritage Register (NSWSHR). Please bear in mind that I acknowledge that you may feel what is happening in Camden important, the creation of St John's Anglican Church, Camden is one of several thousand articles that were created during the past year as I, and others, worked on a project to create Wikipedia articles for every item listed on the NSWSHR. Similar projects have been completed with the Queensland Heritage Register, the Commonwealth Heritage List and the Australian National Heritage List. Rollout to other states/territories is planned. The main source of the data for the article on St John's Anglican Church is the NSWSHR entry, called St Johns Anglican Church Precinct. So, why would we call the article after the church (only) when the source is about the precinct? Well, the simple answer is common usage/common sense. A redirect could achieve the same result. However, please note that the lede section of the article describes the article as referring to the Church, the Precinct, and the St John's the Evangelist Anglican Church. If you are to make edits to the article, that are most welcome, they should be referenced with reliable and credible independent third-party sources. That's it for me for now. Rangasyd (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank for your guidance. I did feel guilty about reverting your edits which is why I contacted you with a detailed explanation, I will add the St John's link back into the Camden wiki page. I think I am registered, if not would you please let me know if I'm wrong. I completely understand you do many edits, I've looked at your work and I am in awe of your achievements. I understand local nuances are not your focus, and the article is more or less sourced verbatim from SHR Listing on the O&EH website. I will set about making the changes with appropriate references.Fj42 (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

The listing is for a historic site and not an individual building. Therefore the best infobox is historic site. The text of the wiki page is almost verbatim from the NSW SHR listing. The St John's Church building is only one of the heritage features of the site and arguably not the reason of the SHR Listing. See the Minutes of Meeting of the State Heritage Register Committee. A focus on the Church building is misleading and possibly degrades the significance of the site. Fj42 (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Infobox church}} restored and {{Infobox historic site}} and {{Designation list}} placed within the context of the church infobox. The removal of the church infobox removed many features associated with this article. Rangasyd (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Move

The St John's Anglican Church, Camden is an operational Church, the St Johns Anglican Camden Precinct is a NSW SHR listed place. This page is derived largely from the SHR of the Precinct and has little to do with the day to day operation of the Church.Fj42 (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The article covers both topics, with the church subsumed within the slightly broader precinct. There seem to be some agendas playing out here that are I suspect are of little interest to Wikipedia editors: we're interested in getting the best possible article about the precinct, not rehashing some politics from the time of the heritage listing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Overview

The focus is changed from the church building to the precinct as per the SHR listing. The ownership detail is corrected as technically the land is not 'owned'. The land was placed into Charitable Trusts by the Macarthur Family through a Feoffment and Declarations of Trusts. The original documents are held by NSW Land Registry Services with access seemly restricted to those who pay the appropriate fees, but this needs to be checked. Overtime the trustee has changed to the ACPT. The precinct is in danger and I think the threat needs to be prominent. The indigenous ownership is obvious and is mentioned simplistically later. It is not clear the land was ever farmed and prior use of the land is a little more complex. I will update the indigenous history and gift history and origin in due course.Fj42 (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Restored many edits made by an inexperienced user without discussion and consultation. User comes from a very local perspective and, while local knowledge can be good, needs to be viewed in the context of the bigger picture of information that is publicly available as reference sources. User needs to provide more references and add times to when things occurred and remove sweeping unreferenced statements such as St John's Anglican Church and its precinct are one of the most complete parish church groups in New South Wales; and St John's Anglican Church and its precinct were created to be the picturesque focus of the Camden region. User:Fj42, PLEASE take care with future edits under WP:EP. Thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Rangasyd Thank you for correcting my reference to the leasing on the rectory and your comment about times. However, I am at a loss to understand the rest of the comments. Nothing I have added is 'local knowledge', and all the information is taken from the "St Johns Anglican Church Precinct" entry on the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage website and referenced in the same manner as the existing page. There is discussion in the talk page on the reason for the changes. As mentioned in the talk page, the NSW Heritage Council has determined the place is a precinct containing many buildings and not a single building. I followed the example used for other SHR places eg Camden Park Estate as it seemed reasonable to accept the determination of the NSW Heritage Council. As to the sentence 'Today, while it is one of the most complete parish church groups in NSW, records held by NSW Land Registry Services show the precinct is only a remnant of the original Macarthur Family gifts to the community' there is a reference at the end of the sentence. Is this not the correct procedure? The phrases St John's Anglican Church and its precinct are one of the most complete parish church groups in New South Wales; and St John's Anglican Church and its precinct were created to be the picturesque focus of the Camden region they are taken directly from the reference. They appear in the first paragraph under the heading St John's Anglican Church Precinct, also they appear in the body of the current page with the same reference I used. Likewise the records held by the NSW Land Registry Services are listed in the same reference under the heading Property description. As I asked you the other day, what is the best way to proceed with modification to this page? Do you want to review each change before I post? Here is a list of the next set of changes I would like to make:

• Change the infobox style to match the determination of the NSW Heritage Council. If you don't agree with the change, would you please explain your reasons.
• Correct the ownership error in the first paragraph. The property of the precinct is not owned, it is held in trust for the community. This is a legal fact as set down in the cited Act and in my view particularly important to state correctly given the current threat to the precinct.
• Remove specific details and peoples names from the first paragraph. I can see no particular reason for including these details in the introduction in preference to any of the many other facts and people contained in the NSW SHR Listing. More generally, the article is long yet omits much of the history of the place, it contains lots of general history which could be replaced by references to other wiki pages and duplicate information. Would not it be better to simplify? What is your view? Also, how much explanation should the article provide? You have asked that "record held" be expanded, but the role of the NSW Land Registry Services is to hold records of land ownership, caveats, declarations of trust etc and detail is well known to people with a knowledge of the area. So how much explanation is required. In this case and explanation of these records and how they are related is long and I think would be better added as a separate section. What do you think?
• Rewrite traditional owners section. It is simplistic to the point of being wrong. I will of course provide references to the new material.

I have taken the liberty to fix the typos, grammatical and punctuation issues which have crept into the first paragraph. Fj42 (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

As I tried to explain above, although we use information from the NSWSHR, our article is no way fixed upon or defined by that content and it is able to be changed as necessary. The NSWSHR does not determine the infobox that we use, the church infobox potentially allows us to display more relevant data about the key parts of the site, and I severely doubt anyone here is interested in rehashing politics about the site from the time of its heritage listing. Your ownership edit appears to be correct and I don't really see the need to get into the weeds of trust law: the article only used "owned" because of a quirk of the script that transferred the material from the NSWHD, and it's pretty common for church property to be held in these kinds of arrangements - however you want to (in as few words as possible) summarise it is probably fine by me. I'm not sure why you would want to remove the architects from the lead section as it seems like a very obvious fact to include at that level, particularly since they're very notable architects. As I said above, no objections to pruning the whopping amount of context that's really not closely related to the church (and some of which could arguably even be used in more relevant articles). The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, I want to understand the infobox issues. Rangasyd as made similar comments without detail. From what I can see, the extra fields in the church infobox relate to the operations of the church and are not heritage related, so why are the relevant? Don't they distract for the heritage? The church building dominates the site, but it is not the key part. The NSW Heritage Council has determined the key part is the unusually complete collection of ecclesiastical buildings, so I suggest the precinct should be featured, perhaps with a second info box for the Church. It is not a question of politics (which by the way are still current and generating a lot of interest here), it is a question of accurately reflecting the heritage values of the site. Generally you are right about Church property, almost all is held by a trust. However, have you seen the Feoffment and the Declarations of Trust for the precinct? They are very unusual, and reflect the Macarthur Family's world view, and the start of the heritage of the precinct, ideally the story should be told somewhere in the document. I removed the list of architects because I was trying to change the focus to the precinct and because it is misleading and too difficult to correct - the Scott & Blacket had nothing to do with the main church, the were involved with the chancel and vestry in finished in 1874. I will make changes to clarify the trust status and provide the requested references, the infobox can wait until we determine the future of the pageFj42 (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not unusual to have a topic to which multiple potential infoboxes apply, and so people pick the most relevant one: for all historic churches I'd be inclined to use the church one because it has more relevant fields than a generic heritage-site one. It isn't an either/or: it is an article about the church (and precinct), so having material about the church doesn't distract from the heritage site - we're interested in both, and the heritage site one is necessarily generic. To be honest, I was just baffled initially where you were coming from so I did a quick research and realised that there's a current preservation battle going on relating to the precinct. Quibbling about the infobox doesn't help anything - it's not making a statement of any kind, it's just deciding how Wikipedia can best display pieces of key information; equally, taking information about the church out of the lede is unhelpful (it would be much better to say that so-and-so designed the church, Scott & Blacket designed the chancel and vestry, and for your purposes make it explicitly clear in the lede about the collection of ecclesiastical buildings (preferably by quoting a heritage source directly and attributing it to them). What I also think would be a better use of your time would be adding information about the preservation battle (along with, as I said earlier, focusing the article): it's absolutely relevant, should absolutely be in the article (including in the lede), and is the kind of situation where the facts really just speak for themselves. You need to be really careful about neutrality because you're clearly very personally involved but it's something I'm happy to edit if there's issues with additions initially. The article needs these updates that would help improve our article and help explain your cause to people, but no one who isn't overwhelmingly passionate about the subject is even going to notice what infobox you use or value the surrounding site more because you took the church architects out of the lede. If the ownership situation is that complicated, it's probably worth concisely explaining it somewhere down in the body of the article - it's not of interest enough to average people to be in the lede. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, Thank you, so I'm clear I understand let me restate the issues as I understand them, I'm doing this, so I am sure I understand what you are saying, not to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I am wrong. Your criteria for the choice of Infobox comes down to selecting the one which best presents the material. I came from a different perspective. I choose the Template:Infobox historic site because of projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes, Wikipedia:List of infoboxes and DBpedia. The Template:Infobox historic site would place the page in the Buildings and structures tree while the Template:Infobox church would place the page in the Religion and belief tree. Should be possible to do both. Preservation battles have and will come and go. My interest in this place predates the current issues by decades. I agree it is important to focus and complete (there is a lot of detail missing) the article. The ownership is legally complicated, but simple to explain - the Macarthurs gave this place to the people of Camden 'for ever' - they did not place the usual 'for the use of the church' in the trusts, and the Bishop of Australia swore an oath (likely by almighty God) to keep the place 'for ever'. - Certainly worth an addition. I think the most important issue is to accurately tell the story of the place because as you say it speaks for itself. Fj42 (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Methinks someone has a WP:COI and cannot see it. Is it time to take the article with {{COI}}? Rangasyd (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Rangasyd: I think Fj42's interest here is pretty obvious but he seems like he might be willing to work with us and the article could use the work, so probably no need for that. He's not wrong that the history section could do with a good solid prune of material that's too distant from the subject matter and the article fundamentally needs updating, with the history section ending in 1973 despite there being major current developments that aren't in the article. I hadn't looked at the "description" section closely until now, but now that he brought it up I'm not sure I've ever seen a NSWSHR section more desperately in need of being completely rewritten into prose. That description section re: the church is actually the sort of mess that people stumble across, assume everything else is that bad, and start whining about CC-BY content more generally. Fj42's knowledge could be very useful in working out what is actually relevant in the early history section and working out what is actually important in that shambling mess of a description, particularly if he's willing to get it and do the reworking.

Fj42: I think you're just barking up the wrong tree about the infobox: nobody is ever going to notice again whether the infobox places the article in the buildings and structures tree or the religion and belief tree, but the latter one seems more logical for an ecclesiastical precinct, even putting aside that the church infobox provides more useful to the reader. There are so many productive things you could be doing with this article and fretting about the infobox is about the least helpful (or noticeable to anyone who isn't us and you ever again) one of them. A paragraph about the ownership somewhere in the article makes sense as long as you can back up your claims there with solid sourcing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Drover's WifeThe infobox change is trival. My reason for pushing the issue is to find out how receptive the wiki community was to input and different points of view. I now know the answer. Fj42 (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You've got numerous examples of people on this page being very receptive to many of your suggestions, but appear to have chosen to sulk because you picked a fight about an infobox and everyone else didn't cede to your demands, and have shown zero interest in actually working with others to put your more helpful suggestions to the article. It appears my good faith might have been misplaced. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, please stop making assumptions. The answer I have is that there is a tight knit group of people working in this area and on this page with specific goals in mind (eg I'm just going to delete this section too because definitely no one cares for our purposes). None of this is necessarily bad. For me it means I can either spend a great deal of time learning the workings and views of the group, limit my changes or simply withdraw. I have tried to engage by explaining the origins of the SHR information and why it has issues, by asking questions on this page, offering to make the changes in a sandbox for review - the response is to focus on the infobox, ignoring my questions, make large scale changes to the article without discussion, or snide comments (eg Methinks someone has a WP:COI) - so it seems working with the group, at the groups choice (not mine) is off the table. Likewise, leaving the article alone is not an option for me. So, I'm left with making relevant changes from time to time as I see fit.Fj42 (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The edit summary you just complained about ("I'm just going to delete this section too because definitely no one cares for our purposes") was making a change to the article that you explicitly requested ("One of the purposes of an SHR Listing is to require the upkeep of a place, and so the SHR entry documents the fabric and condition of the area in detail. As a result the generated page contains long lists of detail which could be a link.") and then peculiarly deleted from the talk page along with your most recent reply. I'm just bewildered at this stage: I'm broadly in agreement with many of your changes apart from the infobox, you don't engage about anything else but the infobox and solely obsess about it despite us trying to point you in any other direction then accuse us of focusing on the infobox, and complain when I make changes you explicitly requested. We're bending over backwards to work with you because you've got a bunch of issues that are reasonable and you're just throwing tantrums because you won't get support to use your desired infobox and/or delete the SHR material entirely. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife I hate trying to communicate using text - it is so limited. I'm clearly not getting my message across. I'll try again. There is no tantrum, it is about setting boundaries and efficient use of time. I will continue to work on this page and others and adhere to the wiki conventions as best I can. I will not create the sandbox or do a significant rewrite of this page for prior approval. The infobox issue was simply a straw man to see you things works, I'm very wary of engaging on the internet as it is usually a huge waste of time. I could have picked any one of the issues I raised - say the 200+ zero length Circular references. To be clearer, the infobox is trival. What is not trival are assumptions on my motivation, the unilateral changes when it's known others might be working in the area, dismissing other people projects (eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes, lack of answers to direct questions and the snide remarks.Fj42 (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit conversations from article talk pages - it is not done on Wikipedia. Attempting to work with you on the article doesn't seem to have been a productive endeavour: you've attacked me for making edits you specifically requested and then ignored it when I pointed this out, and your own edits have either pushed fringe ideas relying on intense original research (the Macarthur grant issue may be very important to you but if no one else has written about it in the entirety of recorded history it can't be used in Wikipedia) or intensely unreliable sources (like some random website whining that the mainstream sources on the smallpox epidemic were too politically correct). These are edits that are fundamentally at odds with core Wikipedia editing principles and were never going to stand, NSWSHR content or no NSWSHR content. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, sorry about the move (not delete), just following the example set by Rangasyd when he moved my conversation earlier. Fj42 (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I copied, (not moved) discussion on the article from my talk page to this page [Discussion on this topic has been moved to Talk:St John's Anglican Church, Camden#State heritage listing.]; because this was the logical point for continued discussion. I made a note on my talk page that discussion should take place here and not on my talk page. Rangasyd (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I won't do it again. For the record I am not attacking you, I have specifically stated the problem is my ineffective communications skills. I did reply to your comments (see above), but perhaps you did not see the reply due to the move of the conservation to my talk page - I notice you did not move my reply back to this page - I have fixed the omission. I agree with your comments about working together not being productive, there seem to be a large number of unwritten rules about how thinks are done - all very off-putting for someone just starting to with wikipedia. You are wrong about no one else has written about it in the entirety of recorded history - there are thousands of pages, including a judgement from the High Court of Australia, I will try again. I suggest the Friends of the First Government House Site Inc is a reliable body, it incorporated and is largely responsible for the stopping the development of the First Government House site. I suggest your description of the article like some random website whining is in my view incorrect, it simply states (accurately) there is no know source for the disease, and outlines a number of possibilities. The same information is available from a number of sources. I will try again. Likewise J Wrigley is a recognised historian with a number of publications and an OAM for his services to local history - so according to the Australian Government, his views are creditable. About the word 'aborigine' - I am aware of the views of Amnesty International and ACTCoss (especially the Gulanga Good Practice Guide), I am also aware of Wikipedia:Quotations especially the first paragraph - the quote from John is about a controversial matter and a direct quote seems the best way of recording the information, even capturing the unconscious attitudes of older Australians. I will try again. Fj42 (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the lede - that's really helpful and exactly the kind of thing the article needs. If people have written about the Macarthur grant issue, then the accuracy and significance of the issue can be cited to those people: kit's just a note telling people to physically go to the archives and compare the maps that's the problem. It's not just Amnesty and ACTCoss - no one much uses "aborigine" anymore as it's antiquated language and it's widely regarded to be offensive when people do. The article already explains who the traditional owners are and acknowledges land use in the broader area before white people, there's no sources suggesting a known history of Aboriginal land use in the immediate church precinct, so it covers the topic about as much as it needs to: some guy's revisionist history of the smallpox epidemic, or getting into some local historian's subjective judgments about the value of Aboriginal oral history has even less to do with the church precinct than even the most obscure bit of context in the NSWSHR. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Further to this discussion, I've gone ahead and hacked at the description section to remove a bunch of unencyclopedic trivia: although detailed description of places is usually good, the age of the skirting boards in a particular room in the rectory is getting a bit too trivial. I haven't done the section concerning the church yet because much more of the dot-pointed detail appears to be relevant and need to be rewritten as prose instead of flat-out deleted, but it needs a good bit of thought about what's relevant and what isn't: for instance, the details of the stained-glass windows and their dedications to various famous people are probably useful whereas which parishioner the 1970 service book cupboard was dedicated to probably isn't. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Traditional owners

It is difficult to know where to stop and start with this section. Even the names are loaded with potential issues. An important point to note is Camden was the place where the British forces responsible for the Appin massacre were based during that unfortunate incident. Not surprisingly it is difficult to get the few remaining local people to talk. I suspect there is a lot more to the story. There are rumors of articles and possible PhD publications, should they contain relevant I will add those bits. Some of the stories of related to the St John's cemetery are interesting, but too detailed for inclusion. As to the smallpox outbreak of 1789, I cannot find any evidence which conclusively identifies the source, even the [Australian National Museum reference states There is still debate over how smallpox broke out in the Sydney area in 1789. For those interested in more reading here are some further references: Was Sydney's smallpox outbreak of 1789 an act of biological warfare against Aboriginal tribes?; The Dreadful Hacovk; [jstor=24046734 Could First Fleet Smallpox infect Aboriginies?] It is possible the old road crossing the precinct followed a pre-existing trail, but who knows for sure.

Again, not related to the subject of this article, and the repeated attempts to cite a really obviously unreliable source (minimal cited facts, whining about political correctness, not-very-well-informed opinion piece of revisionist history) are just a bit odd. The articles noting the uncertainty over whether it was accidental or deliberate are clearly not having the same conversation as whatever that guy is on. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the ffghs article. To some extent I agree, it not published in a recognised or refereed journal, and therefore potentially of questionable quality and should be treated with caution. The redeeming feature is the succinct list of the four commonly proposed alternatives: accidental, conspiracy, preexisting, Asian. I think it sometimes necessary to look past the style and go to the substance, I think the article is sufficient to support the argument the origin of the smallpox is unclear. The point is these theories keep resurfacing I can find nothing which categorically states which is the most likely. If you don't like this cite swap it for Thomas Keneally's The Commonwealth of thieves (ISBN 9781741661217) or even History wars#Controversy_over_smallpox_in_Australia. They says much the same thing, but take a lot longer. Whether it is revisionist history is an interesting question in itself, personally, after reading all the primary sources from the first fleet, I am very skeptical of what passes as the accepted view of early colonial history. However, I suggest a little revision of indigenous history seems to be appropriate. Fj42 (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Who wrote the first para? It's unauthored! Rangasyd (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Me - sorry newbie mistakeFj42 (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

British invasion and settlement of Camden

Re 1795 change: Atkinson, Alan (1988). Camden: Farm and Village Life in Early New South Wales does not say what was attributed. It says "The explorers of 1795 were much more impressed with the new country than those of 1790 had been. At Sydney the news of the wild cattle caused much excitement, but neither the land nor the livestock was badly needed, and for some time being they were too remote to be more than subjects of curiosity. Hunter was only keen to prevent the cattle from being disturbed, believing that in time they would become a 'very great Advantage and Resource to this Colony'. The other reference is self-reference. A better source of information is the account by David Collins.Fj42 (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Re 1795-1824 protection of cattle: Atkinson, Alan (1988). Camden: Farm and Village Life in Early New South Wales abridges the history and leaves out the economic imperatives of an expanding colony. Atkinson is about life in early Camden and only summaries prior events. The other is a self-reference. A better source of information are the press reports of the time and an analysis by the London School of Economics on NSW under Macquarie.Fj42 (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Re John Macarthur and his family. Macarthur was a significant and polarizing figure in Australian history. As this article is about the St Johns Anglican Church Precinct, while interesting a lot of the detail in the original article is irrelevant to the topic. It is covered in the main wiki article on John Macarthur and repetition here makes the article too long. Further, some of the detail was wrong. The only record of a dispute with Governor Phillip is in the last month of Phillip's term. There was a dispute between Captain Nepean and Macarthur requiring the intervention of Major Grose, but this was related to events before the departure of the second fleet. The duel between Paterson and Macarthur was illegal, but there is no evidence it was irregular - the details are contained in the Historical Records of New South Wales Volume 4. It seems King sent Macarthur to England because King knew Macarthur would not be convicted in NSW and hoped to rid himself of Macarthur.Fj42 (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

As previously stated, no objections if you want to trim this context content. We have John Macarthur (wool pioneer) for a detailed treatment of Macarthur. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Camden Park and the Macarthur Family

Camden Park was not the beginning of organised settlement. The huts for use by shepherds and cattle overseers at Cawdor predate the first Macarthur grant. An estimate of the wealth of the Macarthurs at the time of the creation of precinct is more relevant as is the detail of the land of the precinct. The creation of Camden had little to do with settlement along the Northern border of the estate, more associated with death of John Macarthur, changing economics and creation of roads through the estate. I will add this detail as time permits Fj42 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Added detail of house from more recent researchFj42 (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The previous version described the 1820s. Changed to describe the 1840s when precinct established and corrected some links.Fj42 (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)