Talk:King O'Malley
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
King O'Malley is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Adam's edit has now turned this article into a propaganda diatribe against O'Malley. It needs to be extensively re-written. --14:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Adam, you have repeatedly deleted the following information from this article:
- "In 1889, after working on the campaign of U.S. President James Garfield, he migrated to Queensland."
- "He also agitated for the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, a National bank. In a speech in federal Parliament on his proposed national bank on Sept. 30, 1909, O'Malley emphasized, "The private banking system of the Commonwealth is only a legalized monopoly for the gathering of wealth from the many, and its concentration in the hands of the privileged few... We are legislating for the countless multitudes of future generations. We are in favour of protecting, not only the manufacturer, but also the man who works for him. We wish to protect the oppressed and downtrodden of the earth." The Hamiltonian system should be counterposed to this, he said, adding, "I am the Hamilton of Australia. He was the greatest financial man who ever walked this earth, and his plans have never been improved upon. The American experience should determine us to establish a national banking system which cannot be attacked.""
Are you disputing the accuracy of these items, or are you making an ostentatious display of contempt for the Wikipedia NPOV policy?
--Herschelkrustofsky 21:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For the record, the paragraph that User:Herschelkrustofsky complains has been removed was copied directly from an article, "Australia: The strategic implications of Pauline Hanson's election victory", on a LaRouche site, the Executive Intelligence Review. [1] This copying was a direct violation on a ban by the Arbitration Committee on the addition of LaRouche material to articles that are not "closely related" to the LaRouche movement. That HK not only made this banned edit but then went on to defended it by attacking the editors who tried to remove it is evidence of a problem which is currently being addressed (again) by the Arbitration Committee. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux. -Willmcw 22:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the quote is not really from O'Malley? If it is a fabricated quote, that would be bad. On the other hand, if it is a genuine quote, does it really matter if it appeared in some other publication? --172.191.147.67 13:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- The problem is that the user plagiarized material, then edit-warred over its inclusion. He did this on a number of other articles as well. It is never correct to copy material without attribution; doing is an "intellectual crime". And as is pointed out below, LaRouche sources are not trustworthy. -Will Beback 21:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Everything from LaRouche sources must be assumed to be false unless independely verified. Adam 16:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Are you the same bloke that got into trouble over the biographies of Australian MPs? --172.192.95.235 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] reverted pub image
I thought it would be good to show a modern reference to him. Isn't the pub the reason most Canberrans have heard of him? (it is for me) Cfitzart 14:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Some Canberrans did of course acquire a substantial amount of knowledge about their city before the pub was opened and/or before they became aware of any pubs in Canberra. Others would have learned of his name through the linkages with the suburb - a high profile suburb as far as house prices go with the median non-unit price in excess of $1 million. When I was young there was a certain amount of comment about the suburb name because of its Irish ring and because O'Malley was seen as somewhat of a scoundrel or as per the title of one of his biographies, an American bounder.
- Because he paid a significant role in Canberra, some of us had heard of him anyway without the reminders, just as we have heard of Menzies who is not remembered on any building or through suburb or street name in Canberra.
- The article already references the joke about the pub's name given that thanks to O'Malley Canberra was dry until 1928. There do in fact seem to be more than enough images to go on with for the moment. Perhaps the picture could liven up the Civic page.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 19:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dubious statements
The article says "It is unlikely that "King O'Malley" was his real name" without any real basis. If his mother's maiden name was Mary King, it is in fact quite likely that "King" was a given name. It might not have been the only one, of course. One obvious possibility was that he was a William Jr. who when by his second given name.
It also claims "information concerning his background is suspect as neither his name nor those of his parents occur in the United States Census at any time prior to his emigration."
It is extremely rare to see such a ludicrous claim that someone does not appear in a census. Sure, you might not find the exact spelling "O'Malley, King" in some transcribed index of the censuses, but that doesn't mean he doesn't appear in the census, and it doesn't even mean that couldn't actually appear in the census with that exact name. Furthermore, there are not all-person indexes of most of the censuses. Gene Nygaard 01:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Gene, Arthur Hoyle spends his first chapter of "King O'Malley - the American Bounder" examining his name and birthplace. I think the basis for the claim that he made up his name is well made in the Hoyle book. Thus I will remove your first dubious alert. But I have no view on the census claim. Maustrauser 01:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Maybe a direct quote from the book to that effect, then. It certainly is plausible to me that "King" could have been a given name, but I haven't read the book. Gene Nygaard 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-
It could easily be something like this in the 1880 census, a William and Mary with a William Jr. the right age. Gene Nygaard 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Name Relation Marital Status Gender Race Age Birthplace Occupation Father's Birthplace Mother's Birthplace William O MALIE Self M Male W 68 IRE Laborer IRE IRE Mary O MALIE Wife Female W 47 IRE IRE IRE William O MALIE Son S Male W 21 NY Laborer IRE IRE Edward O MALIE Son S Male W 19 NY Barber IRE IRE John O MALIE Son Male W 17 NY Laborer IRE IRE Thomas O MALIE Son Male W 16 NY Laborer IRE IRE George O MALIE Son Male W 15 NY IRE IRE Elisebeth O MALIE Dau S Female W 13 NY IRE IRE Alice O MALIE Dau S Female W 10 NY IRE IRE Walter O MALIE Son S Male W 8 NY IRE IRE Anna O MALIE Dau S Female W 2 NY IRE IRE
Source Information:
Census Place Medina, Orleans, New York
Family History Library Film 1254912
NA Film Number T9-0912
Page Number 298B
[edit] Rewrite needed
The artical has much important information missing such as his life in Texas and there is also incorrect or missing names and out of sequence history. It even got the name of a state wrong.
I will do a rewrite as soon as I can. I will be using a University textbook as a source so will only be able to name the book in references. Wayne 04:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Added the book and edited up to arrival in Gawler. Reading it after saving I can see why it was not in the original, it sounds crazy. But history is history and it is documented. Will look at doing more later. Wayne 15:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Labour" vs. "Labor"
See here for a recent dialogue about the reason why the spelling changes from "Labour" to "Labor" mid-way through the article. -- JackofOz 00:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- How about a footnote at the first occurrence of the spelling change—as I have now added to the article. It's only a suggestion, so please feel free to revert if you don't like it.
- —David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
