Talk:Laurence Hartnett

Untitled

I believe the information given about the Lloyd-Hartnett is incorrect. The car as sold in Australia had the same engine as the German Lloyd. The Datsun reference is to a quite separate project.

Submitted by Peter Pegg [ peter@co-opones.to]

Peter, as I indicated in the article, the Lloyd- Hartnett was based on the German Lloyd, and the venture failed due to the lack of parts supplies (which included engines).

I believe the information I have provided is correct.I would be delighted if you could shed some further light on these interesting cars. I first saw one of these cars in 1971.

Fitzpatrickjm 10:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laurence Hartnett. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080322141257/http://media.gm.com/aus/holden/en/company/history/history_milestones.html to http://media.gm.com/aus/holden/en/company/history/history_milestones.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laurence Hartnett. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819215016/http://science.org.au/awards/aasmedal.htm to http://www.science.org.au/awards/aasmedal.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

original research?

Many of the citations seem to be to archival sources. In other words, someone is doing "original research."

Which is great -- for publication in an academic history journal.

But isn't Wikipedia supposed to be based on already-published sources?

Yilanhoca (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC) (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to explain how you make the logical leap from "archival sources" to "original research". Bryan Krippner (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll try. I'm only an occasional Wikipedia editor, so maybe I've misunderstood.

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." Wikipedia:No original research

Archival sources are by their nature unpublished. In other words, once an archival source has been published, it can be cited as a book or article or whatever.

But a source like this one is definitely not a published source: "Remembrance of Kate Taplin, wife of George Taplin, born 21 May 1839 died 19 September 1876 Hartnett Papers, Melbourne University Archives." (An interesting source, but not a published source.)

Does this make sense? ~~~~ Yilanhoca (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

From your link:

"Source material must have been published, the definition of which for the purposes of Wikipedia is made available to the public in some form"

So yes, your example IS a published source. Bryan Krippner (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for clarification. The Wikipedia world is a strange place. Yilanhoca (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)