Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/History of the Australian Capital Territory/archive1

== Fifelfoo's concerns ==

Comments: Not well researched, not comprehensive, not restricted to its subject. Doesn't do what it says it does (history); does what it doesn't says it do's (social geography, legal minutae). §Development outside Canberra is social geography at best. §Development of Canberra doesn't discuss the unusually planned nature of Canberra. §Establishment of the Territory in law is incomplete telling half a story. There's no social history after foundation. The expected labour history is absent. Its also effectively a fork of History_of_Canberra. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article would have obvious imbalances and undercovered areas if we looked at some books, but what's wrong with mentioning the historical development of infrastructure such as the building of highways and dams in the "devt outside Canb" section?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  07:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then it should be written as history. There's no purposive statement about the need, argument, funding arrangement, cause for expansions of dams.  I've read some riveting histories of water supply in Australia; this article doesn't adequately contextualise the water supply issue.  "Past things in the ACT" isn't history. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article does exactly what it says - it's a history of the ACT as a whole, not a history of Canberra. The specifics about the planning of Canberra belong, as you state, in History of Canberra. I'm not sure what you feel is missing with regard to the establishment of the territory in law, but perhaps you might feel kind enough to oblige us. I'm also not sure what you feel the "expected labour history" might be, which is strange since I'm fairly well-read on this particular subject. Rebecca (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a conclusion to the issue of resumption and leasehold which ends with the stale hook, "The Minister suggested that landowners accept the departmental valuation or hire a Queens Counsel and appeal to the High Court." Departing from a narrative mid-story is a serious problem, its as if the issue of leasehold was dropped, and it isn't resumed later in the discussion of suburban subdivision.  The minutae of government instrumentalities in the 1950s is insufficiently thematised, this is not summary style, it is a chronology.  This is not good work.  Fifelfoo (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right - that is one thing that warrants fixing. I could also agree that some of the phrasing surrounding the content under the development of Canberra could stand to be reworked. However, describing what's said there as "minutiae" just shows that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about concerning the content of this article - that "minutiae" covered the entire administration of the ACT prior to 1989, and was a heavily influential force on every aspect of the city and jurisdiction. Rebecca (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and in relation to labour history, most state histories in Australia have been defined at some point by the cultural and legal reaction to industrial disputation. Histories exist of the relationship between ACOA and the Public Service. If this isn't the History of Canberra then why do the articles read like pov FORKs with little difference in content? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that it's particularly notable. It might be the case in other states, but the history of the ACT - and the history of Canberra - have not been defined in any major way by industrial disputes. This is because Canberra never actually had any notable industry - while the public sector unions could and did raise a racket when required, I can't think of a single conflict which would warrant mentioning here. It certainly pales in significance to the events which you've dismissed as "minutiae" above - which reinforces my opinion that you have absolutely no clue on the subject - in which case, why are you trying to review the content in detail?


 * This article was intended to be exactly what it states - a history of the territory as a whole, with an appropriate summary style treatment for Canberra. History of Canberra was intended to be the next project, but the project stalled, so it's not in the greatest state. Nevertheless, the problems with that article have no bearing on the eligibility of this article for FA status. And seriously, "POV fork?" Change hands and quit mouthing off, will you? Rebecca (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Almost all of ACT lives in Canberra; most of the non-Canberra part of ACT is satellite stations, Mt Stromlo, forest, etc. So similarity is hard to avoid, especially with politics  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 08:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for insulting me; please contact me when the article actually meets writing and research criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It clearly already meets research criteria - not that you'd know much about that. Remind me why you're editing an encyclopedia again? Rebecca (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning your faith - I'm questioning your knowledge and your attitude, both of which are, to put it lightly, rather off. Rebecca (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely we aren't voting yet anyway (not at FARC), or am I missing something?  Aaroncrick  ( talk )   09:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, and no need to get too worked up early either  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  09:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having mistaken FARC for FAC, here's detailed listing
 * There is no social history after establishment. This is a game breaking research error.
 * Game-breaking how? The period before the establishment of the territory is necessarily heavy on social history, but it's not the most important aspect of the post-establishment period; the article covers all the most important aspects of that period. Further detail belongs in History of Canberra. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The lede is 19th century heavy and doesn't represent the article's focus on social geography and civil works
 * This is nonsense. The first paragraph focuses on the pre-establishment period; the second paragraph focuses on the post-establishment period. Each paragraph aptly summarises the material in the article on that time period. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no contextualisation of social meaning. One can read this article and walk away without knowing the whys or becauses of the ACT, with one small exception on land tenure disputes in relation to pastoralists.
 * What "contextualisation of social meaning" would you like to see? Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why were pastoralists important in the pre-ACT; why did they cease being important; what force replaced them (Direct Federal Intervention for example), why was their dispute over self-governance, how did the housing crisis manifest, why did a "development" mentality hold post 1930. Does the history of the ACT differ to other states and territories, how, why.  If we're going to keep the large government-as-agent section, then the unique agency of the Federal government in relation to the ACT needs to be clearly drawn out, "After the 1930s, Federal initiative replaced inter-state bartering or the process of government response to landholders such as pastoralists" The absence of characters and themes in the article makes it extremely difficult to follow. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * " and from what can be reconstructed from evidence obtained from remaining archæological sites, there is an adequate record of the history of the local indigenous peoples prior to European exploration and settlement." Adequate history not given in article.
 * Useful suggestion. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "In 1788 the British landed at Sydney Cove, and the European settlement of Australia began.[6] As the colony expanded more land was needed to grant to free settlers for farming.[7]" Off context, dubious interpretation which slips a pro-Settler POV into the article.
 * Useful suggestion. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anachronistic context: "When the limits of location for settlement in New South Wales were determined, the Limestone Plains were authorised for settlement by British settlers and settlers of other European origins.[13] The first land grant in the area was made to Joshua John Moore in 1823," limits of location being established in 1826. Inadequate context on pastorialism.
 * What context would you like to see? It seems apt to me. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Contextualise both. "With the expansion of pastoralism limits on the extent of British land grants came into play.  The grant system was limited by customary graft relations, but these were further restricted by enforced limits of location for European land ownership.  Later the grants system was cut off entirely and the government made available only land within the limits of location for sale.  John Moore was granted land in the future ACT region in 1823 under the original system of government grant..."Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "During the first 20 years of European settlement." Irrelevant. Settlement in the ACT dates to 1820, 32 years after European settlement.  Or is "Settlement in the region later to become the ACT" meant?  Needs to be integrated into the narrative of early pastoral settlement, not separated.  "the further decimation of the Aboriginal population."  What initial decimation?  Decimation should be avoided as it also has a specific meaning.
 * Useful suggestion. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Over the succeeding years, " from when?
 * "The district's change … the other one becoming capital." Too long and off context. "As a result of interstate rivalries during the period leading up to Federation a compromise was reached."
 * "A compromise was eventually reached between the two houses" lack of context, what kind of compromise, which agents, the House of Representatives and Senate rarely act in the manner described, normally dividing on party lines, yet there's no discussion.
 * There's no discussion because what you're talking about wasn't the case in 1909. I don't understand why you're forcefully making demands about the article's content based on things that you're blatantly ignorant of. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So which interests caused the division? The house doesn't divide on a whim, but on party, argument or interest.  Was the division states-states; urban-rural; pastoralist-farmer; industrialist-agricultural; imperial-national, etc etc etc.  Causes please.  Placing events without cause gives rise to the lack of context. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What, there were social agitations around this, "Two people who had campaigned particularly strongly for the federal capital to be in the Canberra area and against the Dalgety site were John Gale,[46] the publisher of the Queanbeyan Age,[47] and federal politician King O'Malley." This is the first we hear of them.  Wow, imagine that we should discussion the reasons for popular agitation regarding the capital's site?  Were these provincialist, economically interests, graft based, what kind of arguments were these?
 * This could probably be better explained, but I suspect you'll find that none of those apply: King O'Malley was a politician from Tasmania, for one. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then O'Malley is even more interesting as taking a dedicated interest in the seating of a capital outside of his area of partisan, electoral and financial interest. He must have had some motivation (even selfless ones are interesting).  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * " that no land in the Territory can be held " needs a continuous tense as it is past, current and continuing
 * Useful suggestion. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Minister for Home Affairs, King O'Malley, who was responsible for the legislation creating the ACT" and hasn't been introduced as a major character in the drama.  King O'Malley the [blah and blah] who represented [blah interests] and [notable features and scandals] was a key federal figure behind the agitation for the ACT in Canberra.
 * This probably warrants some more explanation. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "King O'Malley successfully pushed through legislation that restricted all land holdings in the new territory to leasehold, rather than freehold. " We heard this two paragraphs ago, why is it being resumed as the subject?  "This was intended to avoid land speculation and give the national government, as the lessor, greater control over development."  Oh intentions?  Perhaps we could actually talk more about intentionality in this whole process, like characterising the factional interests over the site debate in the early 20th century with some greater detail?
 * What factional interests are you talking about? I have absolutely no clue what you're referring to. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Victoria" and "New South Wales" don't act as free agents, they act through their governments, often comprised of parties or coalitions of interests, they act for causes and reasons. For example, what caused NSW to refuse to sell the land to the Commonwealth?  Was it part of the general post-federation fiscal resentment which the States felt towards the new apparatus of public service? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Almost without exception, land valuations fell far short of freeholders’ expectations when compared to equivalent land across the border in NSW. The Minister suggested that landowners accept the departmental valuation or hire a Queens Counsel and appeal to the High Court." And please resolve this narrative with a conclusion.  Pastoralism in the ACT post 1930 is not adequately discussed later.
 * Useful suggestion. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * " Royal Military College, established on the Campbell's property Duntroon" Context: why a military college, wasn't Boyhood Conscription a national issue at the time during a surge of racist military hysteria?
 * This smells to me like something that would be an original research. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it would be if we just wrote it in, the issue is to give an example why, an example context, and show how the meaning of events needs to be included in the article. I'm not wedded to a particular reason, but to the reason and description of causes which ought to exist in secondary sources if they were written by historians being included in the article.  "As a part of institution building, the Federal Government desired to fill out the necessities of  an early 20th century state including officer training." "In the Imperial hysteria caused by the Great White Fleet visits and the threat of wars in the early 20th Century, amongst other war mongering initiatives..." "X Xson argued for Duntroon, in part because of his personal love of parades."  The meanings and intentions are just as important as the events.  They are particularly important to the writing quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * " an international competition to design the future capital was held" Unusual, why, context
 * What context would you expect? It's somewhat self-explanatory. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Most countries do not build capitals afresh. Given that a capital is a national symbol, it is unusual to tender an international competition.  Why was Canberra designed by competition instead of tender or direct selection of an architect or the appointment of a government architect? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Griffin design section is old research and fails to deal with the gender issues in the design
 * How is it "old research"? The "Griffin plan" coverage in the article is one solid paragraph; I'm not sure that "the gender issues" warrant mentioning in a broad summary style topic such as this.
 * The other Griffin, the female one? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "After official indecision over the plan," why?
 * Useful suggestion. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Bureaucratic wrangling delayed Griffin's work" why? "certain officials" who?
 * The discussion of the Garden City and its impact on the social and cultural nature Canberra is entirely lacking
 * What impact are you talking about? It's something that warrants mentioning in passing, but I can't see this being notable enough for any great discussion even in [[History of canberra[[.
 * The feature is the most remarked element of Canberra for a visitor, the undisclosing eyelines, the culdesacs, the go north to go east. This ties into the "Designed city" issue, and the "Housing crisis" issue.  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "At first the public service remained based in Melbourne, the various departments' headquarters only gradually moving to Canberra over the space of several years." As the central disturbance in departmental and government function this is sadly understated and unexplored.
 * This is definitely something that could do with a bit more attention. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bruce Juddery, White collar power : a history of the ACOA Sydney : George Allen & Unwin, 1980. is good for this. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "After World War II there was a shortage of housing and office space in Canberra" This entire paragraph obliterates the residents, culture, society, and workers of Canberra, and replaces social history with a discussion of committee function.  It is an appalling paragraph which in no way discusses the cost of living in Canberra or the housing shortage.
 * I agree to some extent; it doesn't mention the hostel system, which housed a large proportion of early workers in Canberra, and the challenges faced by those who moved there in the early years. However, I'm not sure why it would go into any great detail on the housing shortage of the cost of living; I would say neither was a tremendously notable issue.
 * As opposed to the physical structure of dams in the greater ACT or the minor plantation forest industry? The lack of housing, the hunger for housing, and the social and cultural history of the ACT post pastoralism is lacking.  The housing shortage is a perfect case to raise Federal control, urbanisation, public service issues, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "On average, the population of Canberra increased by more than 50% every five years between 1955 and 1975 as the development of the capital became more concerted." the population is entirely undiscussed.
 * Useful suggestion. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no discussion of private industry for that matter, even if it was limited to commercial sectors. For example the unusual siting of retail businesses.
 * As I've already stated, there was and is no major private industry in the ACT. What "unusual siting" are you referring to?
 * Early retail districts are sited off major transport routes in contrast to the "grown" cities in the rest of Australia which were reliant on high streets and highways for retail locations. Given the apparent lack of non-forestry primary industry post 1930, the obvious lack of secondary industry, the issue of retail development can hold a place.  This could be available through contrast to, for example, NSW, where retail development has exerted immense pressure on local and state government post 1960.  ACT retail associations, such as those in Civic, don't seem to have played such a role. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The absence of social history, the population of Canberra is telling, and proceeds to get worse, where the population of the ACT appear to lack the ability to form social groups. For example, "Some of the anti-self-government representatives sought to disrupt the territory's legislature from the inside,[132] and a no-confidence motion toppled Labor after only seven months."  Who.  Why?  What backers?  What social groupings?  From which suburbs (Oh, Canberra again... right... this isn't a history of Canberra is it?  Or is it, "Despite a 1978 referendum, in which Canberrans rejected self government by 63% of the vote,")
 * This would be plain and simple original research. I've read the definitive history of the self-government movement (own a copy, actually), and while a better explanation of it mightn't hurt, the sorts of assumptions you're making about it are just not borne out. It wasn't based in any particular suburbs; it wasn't based in any particular social groupings; the anti-self-government movement, I would argue, isn't even a matter of influential backers of any note. This is another case where you're actually demanding changes to the article based on things you've got no clue about. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then its absence from the article is remarkable in itself. I look at the article and go, "Why is there no mention of the self-government / anti-self-government movement?"  If you own the definitive version, then add it.  None of these suggestions are, "Please describe the development of the ACT thusly..." all have been examples of missing purposive statements.  Given that self-government was as large a change as the establishment of the Federal Government in Canberra; it is woefully underdescribed. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Development outside Canberra lacks a discussion of private industry in the period
 * Because it doesn't exist. Really. The authors of this article didn't leave it out to deprive you of interesting tidbits; they left it out because there wasn't any, and accordingly, there's nothing that warrants mentioning here. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The absence is remarkable in and of itself. Why was pastorialism missing?  Why was plantation forestry federally controlled?  Why is the ACT effectively a company town of the Federal Government?  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its civil works section fails entirely to answer "why" questions. The civil works appear to exist without people or in many cases function or purpose.
 * Which "why" questions are you referring to? Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did the ACT require a dam for water supply? Why did it require a dam extention?  Who proposed and organised the extended dam.  For that matter, given we're talking water supply, how does Canberra process its shit?  (A question as important as the supply of water)  Did the Federal Government go begging the US for the establishment of Satellite Tracking stations?  Did the US ask the Federal Government?  Development doesn't "just happen".  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no discussion of the social, cultural or population structure of the ACT outside of Canberra after the section on leasehold: This article is effectively History of Canberra at the moment, and should either be improved to cover a history of the ACT, or merged.
 * Again, this is for a reason. While something could probably be said about the early coexistence of the pastoralists in the territory with the citizens of Canberra, the government began gaining pastoral leases in the area fairly early on, so there's very little that could be said in terms of social history post, say, 1960. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then it would be necessary to note the centrality of Canberra in the history of the ACT, and to note features of Canberra's social history of importance. For example, "The houses of parliament have been a target of repeated protest since 19__ when ____."  I'm thinking notable examples here include Trucky blocades for one.  Canberra, and thus the ACT, is a site of performance both for Australia's elite, and for a more general population in the form of protest.  Hell, there's the missing labour history, while the ACT's internal labour history has been produced largely by bargaining (the ACOA example); its also been used to represent the nation to itself such as the anti-Howard union demo which resulted in outrage because a cop was injured, or the guy driving into parliament.  (And here to you've got the presence of formal national memorials, or the reconstitution of the Federal Highway, which is more than simply Canberra, as a memorial). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The narrative as a whole appears to lack the thematisation or structuring of social groups and causes expected of the history of a region. Landowners appear early as an important social group, but their political and cultural organisation is subsumed beneath "A history of Federation and the Federal Government's situation of a capital territory."  Similarly Territorians themselves are subsumed beneath the action of government instrumentalities, and at the moments they pop their heads up (the housing crisis for example with its attendant Cost of Living issues which caused significant mediated dispute between the Commonwealth and its unions), they're smashed beneath a government centred account.  The narrative is a hodge podge, with obvious tack ons (the failure to integrate post European indigeneous history into the discussion of European settlement.).  The article lacks the statements about intention and meaning which are expected, and ought to exist in secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, you seem to be arguing for things that aren't borne out in reality. What "political and cultural organisation" of landowners are you referring to? I think you're overplaying the significance of the housing crisis; while this section could possibly be reworked somewhat, I think the changes you're requesting are inappropriate. I agree that post-European indigenous history is something that's missing from the article. But most of the "intention and meaning" taht you keep demanding to seems to have come from a bunch of assumptions that aren't actually based in any knowledge of the subject, and thus sure as hell isn't helpful here. Rebecca (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am asking why the population of the ACT is absent from the history of the ACT. If they are genuinely uninterested and disorganised (the 1930s disputes about conversion of land into lease hold indicates otherwise) then the absence of social organisation is just as interesting as its presence.  Are you going to suggest that the rural ACT region lacked pastoral societies, Lions clubs, RSLs, churches, community organisations?  You show an inability to abstract the point: this article fails to describe the society, culture, internal differentiation, structuring of intention of the population of the ACT.  It fails to disclose the causers, interests, motivations and intentions of elements of Government.  It produces "Development" as an accomplished fact as if development is a process existing in aether.  The article currently fails to answer why questions, or describe the difference between the ACT and other states and territories: this failure means that the article fails to describe the ACT.  The interesting differences and absences are in themselves remarkable.  "Unlike other states and territories the ACT lacks large influential primary and secondary industries; land development, centrally controlled through the leasehold system, has not been subject to the whims of private development corporations, and the release of land by government in the ACT has been comparatively controlled." (This previous sentence being an example of answering questions about meaning, not a suggestion that this was what actually happened but rather the areas of meaning which a reader would expect to have answered.) Without answers in these areas the article produces the ACT as a generic space. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is absurd, the rural population of the ACT never amounted to more than 2 or 3 thousand people. It certainly didn't support a full panoply of "pastoral societies, Lions clubs, RSLs, churches, community organisations".--Grahame (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)