Talk:Sydney Push

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Undated comments[edit]

Does Anderson have a first name? -- Zoe

Yep - fixed that thanks.

I left the stuff in about "a strong following in Sydney and an international reputation although apparently his actual written output was quite small." although it irks me - I personally do not know. I came across the article under the major misnomer of "Rocks Push" so that was a serious problem. -- wm


Trying to include a book reference but can't (despite much gnashing of teeth) get my footnote to work in the 5th para. Can someone help to fix, pls? Bjenks 09:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Many thanks to Grumpyyoungman01 for fixing. Bjenks 06:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are most welcome. Check out List of Old Falconians for an explosion of references. Grumpyyoungman01 08:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very stylish! Btw, there are misspellings in the first two refs (com-) Bjenks 18:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is sharp of you. Thanks. Grumpyyoungman01 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discuss links here[edit]

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!)--VS talk 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find this procedure ludicrous. The removed links convey a great deal of information without in any way compromising Wikipedis's standards. Please reinstate them forthwith, or provide more substantial justification than that they are 'undiscussed'.--Bjenks 11:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Potential Conflict of Interest Links - VS talk has removed two external links to a website which I publish containing information and articles on the Sydney Push and by some members of the Push. I acknowledge as an editor of this article, this is potentially a conflict of interest.

These are the links:

I believe these links are still relevant to the article as they contain specific information on and by members of the Sydney Push. To avoid a conflict of interest, I should not post the links to the article myself. You are free to discuss the relevancy of these links to the article and may place them back on the Sydney Push article if the editors of the article think they are relevant. Preceeding comment. by --Takver 12:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it is some sort of corny policy, and some doyens of Wikipedia are content to regard the project as a purveyor of superficial information, that's fine by me--but I won't be wasting any more time trying to straighten out untruths and misleading gossip. I prefer media with more realistic standards than tossing out very rare info merely because it is "undiscussed"!! And is it a conflict of interest to write on a subject of which you have experience, or are only citizens of Melbourne and elsewhere qualified to write about the Sydney Push?! Bjenks 13:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sydney Libertarians, Sydney Push[edit]

Not the same are they? The Sydney Libertarians had meetings and conferences and identifiable political tendency; while the "Push" was a social milieu formed around it. One could belong to the Push but not the Libertarians, right? I mean, Clive James for example may have been a member of the Push but was he ever a Libertarian? hard to imagine......and contrariwise I wonder if Dr Greer although a Libertarian was ever really a member of the "Push"? Jeremy (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right—the (Sydney University) Libertarians might number as few as six at a serious introspective meeting (e.g., to frame a rejoinder to David Stove's charges that their behaviour was both authoritarian and moralistic at times :-)). At most of the weekly forums the attendance would be around 15-20. Germaine Greer's 1959 (?) paper on contraception, however, attracted a packed audience including many rent-a-crowd detractors from the university's christian groups. But how many non-university citizens at any time can get away in the middle of the day to attend a lunchtime forum in the heart of a university? The "Push" operated all the time for the unemployed, after work and weekends for others. It was the equivalent of a club in town, with outposts in a few households in inner suburbs. So, you are correct in differentiating between quasi 'priest figures' and eclectic hangers-on, most of whom lived in two worlds, visiting the Push as an entertainment, source of intellectual stimulation, market for sex, gossip, loans, etc, etc. Clive James was one of the latter, being rarely if ever seen at the George but occasionally at Repin's coffee house or Lorenzini's wine bar. He was a (SU) Filmsoc type and, in Push language, would not have qualified even as a 'fringe member' but still sought the company of other literary types behind the main scene, e.g., as an associate of Lex Banning's short-lived Pinchgut Group of poets. Greer was definitely a 'core' member of the Push—and maybe even more so than of the Libertarians (though the latter certainly had all-round cultural interests, not just in philosophy and 'social theory' (their term for politics). Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a little above ground floor[edit]

Any idea what this, in the caption, means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ian Parker[edit]

Despite the article's respectable citation of Bob Gould (provided by myself), I now believe there is some doubt about the story of Parker's death in London. I have always believed it to be true. (I quit living in Sydney in 1975.) However, I have now received trustworthy personal testimony (from other Push associates Graham Fryer and "Toss" Vorbach) that Parker returned to Australia in the early 1970s and was killed there. Sadly, I have to disclose that Paddy McGuinness sometimes manufactured and promulgated fictions for profit, protection of self and mates, etc, and the London death might have been one of them. Having referred to Anne Coombs's book (page 215-6--again citing McGuinness), I'm now inclined to believe that Parker (a) came back and was booked into Callan Park psychiatric hospital, (b) returned to the Push and wrote a 1977 Libertarian Broadsheet article in which he was mischievously reported to have been run over by a bus, and (c) was killed around 1978 in a hit-and-run accident while going home from a pub. If no-one has the full details, it should be possible to clear this up by hunting down an Australian death certificate, around 1978. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, like the idiotic Les Murray furphy, this has been wrong for a long time, but we had to wait for a reputable citation to knock it on the head. I've now been able to get rid of the error because of the publication of Richard Appleton's memoirs. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking back, I see the Ryerson Index lists two SMH death notices for Ian Parker—one published on 3 September 1979; and one (for Ian Alexander Parker, died 25 September 1978) published on 11 October 1978. Bjenks (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sydney Push. 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:

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) 15:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lincoln photo[edit]

Hi. Imho, the moustached figure on right (of picture) could be Lex Banning. The filename of the pic ambiguously implies "Dick Gooding (on right of door)". Is any more provenance available to this important pic and its companions at the NSW State Library, please? Bjenks (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robyn Davidson[edit]

@Michael Bednarek: The explanation you missed was here. Please read it and think again about your edit before I follow through. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether citing Anna Krien is relevant in this article is a different matter. You only removed the wikilink, which struck me as counterproductive, so I reverted it. If an author with an article is mentioned, the name ought to be linked. I have no opinion on the matter discussed at User Talk:Oronsay#Robyn Davidson. -- Michael Bednarek (talk)
Thanks. You are of course right. My intention was to remove the whole citation which, in its relevant sentences, duplicates the existing citation--and I'll now do that. Bjenks (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]