Talk:Frank the Poet

Alternative death contribution

I have lifted out this contribution for discussion because it seems to pose an unverified opinion which baldly contradicts conventional reports such as this one. The unnamed author of The Silent Moon needs to be identified and his sources made more explicit for WP purposes, if his theory is to have equal weight with this better-referenced version

The author of 'The Silent Moon' (Smashwords Digital book, ISBN 9780646583877) creates through research a very different ending for Frank The Poet. In this research the author identifies Frank as having joined the Victoria Police for a short time and then actually performing several of the acts that he wrote about in his poems. The author links Frank to the 1853 McIvor Escort Robbery and the disappearance of gold ship the Madagascar in 1853. This author believes that the claim that Frank died in New South Wales is incorrect. Some historians state that a man using the alias Hill was actually Frank the Poet and died at Mudgee in 1861. It is clear to the author of the Silent Moon that Frank Hill was an imposter who often quoted and may have sometimes pretended to be Frank The Poet. A Frank Hill arrived in Sydney as a convict one year after Frank the Poet. The death certificate for 1861 has the name of Frank Hill upon it and no death certificate exists for Francis Macnamara. For the author of The Silent Moon this only adds weight to his claim that Frank was on board the ship Madagascar in 1853. Various additional newspaper reports around the time are not convincing identifications of Frank The Poet and the Coroners Inquest official document was destroyed because of cost cutting measures and perceived lack of space in the 1960s.

Bjenks (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The e-books's author is Geoff Stewart. Mention of the book and its conclusions have been added to John Francis (bushranger), Frank the Poet ‎, Bully Hayes, and Madagascar (ship) by SPAs User:Redbacks Again and User:Redbacks1853. Redbacks Again self-identifies as the author of the book [1] and [2]. Based on the claim that Redbacks Again first added the information "Some five years ago " [3] (several years before the account was created) and that the material was first added by Redbacks1853 in 2012 [4] it's clear the two accounts are the same user.

The issues are discussed in multiple edit summaries and and multiple pages. See User talk:Redbacks Again, User talk:Meters, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Destruction of Wiki Historical Records, and Talk:Bully Hayes. There may be mentions elsewhere also. Meters (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Central Issues in regards to this page.

Dear Editors/Administrators/readers: It appears that two main issues are at play here.

• Issue 1. This issue is central to the nature of Historical research and the retelling of the past. History is constantly undergoing revision as new evidence is discovered and considered. History is also vulnerable to political and personal manipulation. There appears to be an issue with how wiki wish to use published ebooks with isbn's and categorize them as unreliable. I have explained my credentials and 25 years of research into this episode in Australia's history, it could be argued that no other historian is as qualified to provide information as I am. Yet it appears that because my work is an ebook - by choice this knowledge is to be disregarded. At no stage I have claimed that I am totally right even though I believe I am and instead have presented my evidence as an alternative explanation. If I am unable to cite my book as evidence then my question is will wiki except actual primary evidence?

• Issue 2. By way of example: The claim is made that Frank the Poet Died at Mudgee in 1861. There is no evidence to support that other than a drunken man claiming he was Frank the Poet around the time. There is no death certificate for Frank the Poet. There is absolute evidence that Frank The Poet was onboard the Madagascar that went missing , this evidence is shown in the primary source material of the passenger shipping list, which also supports an official cover up as the shipping list differs from the shipping list that appears in the paper at the time. There is also primary source material that shows that Police new that Frank the Poet was onboard the Madagascar and was not removed. So it may be possible for me to go through every single claim and support each claim with the primary source material would that satisfy Wiki?

cheers GeoffRedbacks Again (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware that WP discriminates against e-books per se, though there are criteria for notability and validity of books in general and particular provisions in respect of books by Wikipedians. There are also firm standards for assessing the reliability of such sources. You are right that historical statements are always subject to analysis, criticism and review in the light of reliable verification. In Wikipedia, such review can easily be effected either by replacing questionable sources with reliable ones, or by creating a subsection which balances—without necessarily replacing—a long-established historical account against a different one which also claims reliable sources. I suggest you try that approach and see how other editors respond. I'm sure there will be no objection if you "support each claim with the primary source material". Bjenks (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• No, "support each claim with the primary source material", is not acceptable (see WP:Primary). And though Wikipedia does not oppose e-books per se, it does oppose the use of self-published works as they are not considered reliable sources. This is essentially an effort by Redbacks Again to get his own original research added to several Wikipedia articles, and that is a violation of WP:OR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I was drawn in without knowledge of this conversation and this, or of the relevant stuff at RA's talk page, or the earlier incarnation. However, the WP policy states "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." So I'll happily pull my head in and stick to examining/discussing individual edits. Bjenks (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, and sorry for rushing and not expanding on my previous comment - I think it's good to have a few watchers on this one. I agree some primary sources can indeed be used depending on the circumstances, but not when it's original research based entirely on primary sources (and, which I haven't mentioned so far, looks like a bit of promotion for this self-published theory too). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)