Talk:Sam (koala)

nw info

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25887523-421,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.182.67 (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A source of info

Is located here for whoever may find it useful. :) --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 02:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Questionable article

A "soft news" story about a koala? I have serious doubts that this deserves a Wikipedia article. -- Barrylb (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My goodness it is clearly notable by being picked up and reported wordwide. This WP article is not just about the original (as you say "soft") news article. Format (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is a growing speculation that there were THREE koalas involved. A male bush koala that was left in the bush to fend for itself, a female koala that looks nothing like the original koala fed water/ she is alot smaller too, and another mystery koala (now stuffed on public museum display) that does not have the same markings as the female koala. Koalas can be identified by their size, fluffy ears, nose and certain other face markings m2 13:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary-ann martinek (talk • contribs)

Profit bid

I have added in a mention regarding the attempt to profit from the image of Sam the Koala. However it is lacking, particularly in source material. Searches for "Sam the Koala" on the Herald Sun website return at least two articles related to the profit attempt, but both articles have since expired due to the length of time. I count myself lucky to be able to have found one article still in public domain. However I cannot find an article that notes the successful counter-claim of the DSE, though I am well aware that it happened because I read it in the paper myself. Thus I have left that with "Citation Required" template, but any help to track down information would be appreciated. -- Droideka75 (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have unarchived this (not certain if I am allowed to, so here goes my attempt) so that we can discuss why WWGB needs to place up certain articles that are irrelevant to the page Sam the Koala. WWGB is sourcing articles written in NZ because ALL the articles that 'originally' were used as references have been ordered down by the Australian Press Council on 13 October 2010. There are no more articles WWGB so give up your relentless pursuit of trying to cite them. I think you need to discuss it here, so Wiki and others can make a decision on what is relevant and what is not relevant. m2 14:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The name/image of Sam the Koala was the subject of two commercial products, a CD and a chocolate. Both are relevant to an article about Sam. I am not engaged in a "relentless pursuit" of anything or anybody. Suggest you get over your paranoia. WWGB (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section

I've removed the following from the article:

Martinek raised the issue of there being two separate koalas, a large male koala (drinking from a water bottle and left in the bush on 1 February 2009) and a small female koala (burnt in backburning in Mirboo North, and rescued on 6 February 2009). To support this view, that the media had not published, a paper by zoologist and author Raymond Hoser, went further and showed that the original video shot showing a water-drinking koala at Mirboo North in February 2009 was effectively a bootleg, a “set-up”, and not a random encounter as alleged.

The paper published in Australasian Journal of Herpetology (Issue 8 pp.1-64) went further and detailed the fairly simple (and easily copied) forensics behind exposing one of the more successful deceptions in recent Australian history.

In December 2009, Martinek was served with, as part of the Trademark Opposition Process, the Statutory Declarations of David Tree and the animal rescuer Michael Beamish. The dates of the encounter with the (water drinking) koala on 1 February 2009 and the rescue of a (burned and injured) koala on 6 February 2009 are the start point of the controversy. A koala 'in the vicinity' was rescued 6 days after the initial encounter

Both the first and second parts are sourced to the Australasian Journal of Herpetology. As far as I can tell, this is an unreliable source in this context on the grounds that:

• The journal is published, edited and, it would appear, written by the same person. Thus it seems to meet all the requirements for being a self-published source.
• The journal claims to be peer reviewed, however there is no mention of an editorial committee.
• The articles are written exclusively by the editor, so it is unclear that any peer review could apply.
• The journal has no academic credentials.
• Koalas, being marsupials, are neither reptiles nor amphibians. Thus they would appear to be outside of the expertise of the journal.

Mind you, finding that the url of a journal about reptiles was "smuggled.com" gave me the best laugh of the day. :) (And yes, I recognise that it is named after one of the editor's books, but it's still funny).

The last part appears to be displaying evidence (two statutory declarations) to support the earlier claim that it could be two koalas, not one. This, however, looks like original research, and I'm a tad nervous to see the declarations hosted on the site of the main protagonist.

Generally, this is accusing a number of people of a deliberate conspiracy to deceive, falsely setting up the photograph and using multiple (two) koalas which they claimed to be the same one. For that sort of claim I think we need very good evidence, and this simply isn't it.

I'm not sure that the section discussing the trademark dispute is worth covering here. It did get media coverage, at least for the first part of that section, but at the same time it seems relatively minor, so it may very well be a case of undue weight. - Bilby (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea who this Bilby character is, but they obviously are afraid of the truth. Simple photographic comparison of the two Koalas, (the Museum female and the drinking male) shows that there are two different animals. Personal attacks on author Hoser have no role in this issue, but it is not surprising that a truth hater may resort to such gutter tactics. The material referring to the accurate account in AJH and the bootlegging and swapping Koalas should be restored immediately.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Acanthophis (talk • contribs)

Bilby has over 7500 edits. You have 10. 'Nuff said ... WWGB (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WWGB gives no information as to whom they are... hence anything from WWGB must be taken with a grain of salt. That Bilby has made 7500 edits to wikipedia indicates that this person has too much spare time on their hands - nothing more. Wikipedia is reliably unreliable and the haste with which false information has been reposted on this page is testimony to that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.117.167 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether you call yourself "Acanthophis" or just use 114.77.117.167, we know who you are Raymond. With the venom you display in your posts, it seems you have copped a few too many bites. WWGB (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by false information in this case. If it in relation to the earlier claim that the trademark dispute had been resolved, then that's been removed. If it is in relation to there being just the one koala, we're limited to what is said in reliable sources, and until that story is covered in them it isn't one we can include - with the extra proviso that strong claims need strong sources. In part because of cases like this, where there are likely to be very different accounts of what constituents the truth, Wikipedia is forced to rely on verification as the only way of proceeding. - Bilby (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Bilby, you must be a total idiot to think that a tabloid newspaper like the Herald-Sun constitutes a reliable source. If as an academic you used such material as authoritative, your papers would never be published anywhere with merit. Now lets start looking at the hard evidence that cannot be disputed and that is the pictures of the two Koalas, the male that drank and the female that didn't. Now let's fix this dishonesty and correct this page and stop having a truth hater like yourself changing it back to wrong information... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.117.167 (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have any properly referenced and verifiable sources to support your claims about two koalas then please provide them and they can be considered for inclusion in the article. If you cannot provide such references then the claims about there being two koalas can only be considered personal opinion or speculation which isn't acceptable in an encyclopedia article. Information in articles depend on verifiability - not "the truth". Afterwriting (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have deliberately chosen to stay out of this argument, but I find it ironic that one pseudonymous user is accusing other pseudonymous users of being unreliable on the grounds that they are pseudonymous. -- the likewise pseudonymous DS (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Afterwriting (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) has asked for verification that there are two not one "Sam Koalas". Well go to "Australasian Journal of Herpetology" issue 8 and it's all there and taken directly from the public record, including a copy of a page from the Herald-Sun newspaper dated Feb 2009 showing a male and female "Sam" on the SAME PAGE. Now can the truth haters stop hacking up this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.117.167 (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is a reliable and verifiable source then you are entitled to argue for its inclusion as an opinion. You are not entitled, however, to claim that this source is proof that there were two koalas in the way that you have been doing. If the claim about two koalas has any merit then any information about the claim must be included in an encyclopedia style way. If you keep on editing the article to push the alleged truth of this claim then other editors will keep reverting or rewriting your comments. You won't win the argument by going about things the way you are doing at present. Afterwriting (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now read these claims in full on the internet and the self-published journal clearly fails various aspects of the reliability criteria for sources - regardless of whether these claims about two koalas may be valid, this journal is not acceptable as support. I suggest that you study Wikipedia's policies on what is acceptable and unacceptable before any further editing - otherwise responsible editors will be compelled to remove such contentious opinions. Afterwriting (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Afterwriting (talk) 13:15 should do a little research and stop being a truth hater. The photos of the two Koalas speak for themselves!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.117.167 (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

All we know is that it's two koala photos. Just because something is "obvious" doesn't necessarily mean it's true. It doesn't mean it's not true, mind you. But it doesn't mean that it is. DS (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My advice to Raymond is to find another journal - one which he does not publish himself - and submit his research for publication. If they accept it we can use it here as a reference. This is the path to "the truth". Follow it. Barrylb (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For Barrylb (talk) , the results have been accepted and widely reported and moreover, AJH is PEER REVIEWED, meaning that at least two independent reviewers have already confirmed and verified the detail. Lets cut to the chase, is Barrylb (talk) denying that there are two Koalas? And how about you stop hacking up the wikipedia page like a coward and adress the facts directly with me here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acanthophis (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not able to find another reliable source reporting the claims in AJH. Would you be able to let me know where the reports are? That would be a great help. - Bilby (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Try this: http://www.youtube.com/thesnakebuster#p/a/u/0/RA3mL7V5a50 See the dual images in the video and http://perth.indymedia.org/?action=newswire&parentview=150421 Now please stop hacking up this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acanthophis (talk • contribs) 06:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but they're not really what we're looking for. You mentioned that it was widely reported, and if so then that would be great, as it would mean we might be able to include the information. But those both appear to be by the same author as the article, and one is a press release while the other a self-made video. Is there something that we can count as a reliable source that is independent of AJH? It would help a lot if there was. - Bilby (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Bilby, cut the crap about "reliable sources", Firstly AJH is a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL, your newspaper sources are tabloid crap and yet you claim they are reliable ... get a grip on things. Secondly AJH makes no unsubstantiated claims - the evidence is within this journal and the images reproduced within, including those same images published in the media, which are for the first time publicly identified correctly as being of a male and then a female Koala. Now Mr. Bilby, lets stick to what is on the public record and undeniable and repeated in AJH and the taboid media. That is the drinking Koala is a male and always has been (legt me guess, you know SFA about Koalas... and the stuffed thing in the Museum is a female, yes really! Go there and have a look for yourself and also ake a lok at the lovely pink socks it's wearing and how it lacks the bald patches of the male drinking Koala ... mmm, let me guess, you never looked at the relevant images. Now please for the umpteenth time, stop hacking up this page and reverting it to Bulls excrement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acanthophis (talk • contribs) 11:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the problem you're running into concerns how Wikipedia needs to operate in order to cope with the particular set of circumstances here. With very large numbers of anonymous editors adding content, Wikipedia needed to evolve policies to cope with the inevitable conflicts and risks associated with such a venture. The key policies that cover this are neutral point of view and verifiability, closely followed by the associated need for reliable sources. As part of this, the level of support needed for claims differs depending on how strong they are - in general, strong claims need strong sources.

The claims that you want to add are very strong, and relate to the actions of living people. The support of those claims is, as far as I can tell, exclusively the article in the AJH, and the evidence provided therein. This is a bit of a problem, because the AJH is self published, and self published sources are quite restricted in their use on Wikipedia. It is also, as you mentioned, peer reviewed, and this is great. However, it seems to me that the end result isn't enough on its own to support such a strong claim, while the evidence provided is problematic, as Wikipedia is very averse to editors engaging in original research, so we can't rely on our own analysis of what you provide. If you could provide other sources (and I agree that newspapers are less than ideal, but they may provide some support) then things may be easier, but so far all that has been offered is more self published material by the same author. At any rate, I'll take the question of the journal to the reliable sources noticeboard, as other editors may feel differently to me about it, and if they see it as sufficiently reliable then we would be able to use it. - Bilby (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

I have sought, and been granted, page protection over the article. Hopefully, cessation of the edit war will allow time for some rational thinking and a change in attitude. The level of vitriol in article edits, the talk page and edit summaries is disgraceful and shames the editors. WWGB (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, WWGB censors the truth and blocks editing, leaving a demonstrably false account of events on the website. Now the source or proof comes from the original "Sam the Koala" pictures. That Koala is MALE, got it!!!! - If you deny that, then you deny the existance of the Koala. Get a grip on reality - let me make it clear - THE DRINKING KOALA IS A MALE......

Mmm, second try, have you bothered working out how to sex a Koala, balls is a start and if you can't see that then look at the head --- mmm, try reading the AJH articl BEFORE you pan it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.117.167 (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How about studying and understanding Wikipedia article policies before attacking other editors? Your edits constitute what is called "original research" and this isn't permitted in articles. You may be correct about there being two koalas but on Wikipedia the "truth" comes second to reliable and verifiable sources as references - so if you want any information about your claims included in the article then you must provide reliable references and a self-published journal doesn't qualify under Wikipedia policies. If you can get your claims printed in a reliable source then they can be considered for some kind of inclusion - but only as claims, not as the "truth" unless some other conclusive evidence for them emerges. Afterwriting (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Afterwriting (talk), AJH is a peer reveiwed journal and it is reliable. You cite tabloid news clips that are reliably unreliable as "reliable". Get a grip on reality. How about you stop spinning crap and wanker excuses that are patently false and you let the truth come out for a change.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.117.167 (talk • contribs)

|}

Article by Journalism at The Phoenix Jul2010

May I ask, why was my newspaper Reference today to Ash Long removed. Ash Long is a journalist and he happpens to own a newspaper business. Why? http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:maPnhflVdSgJ:www.thephoenix.com.au/tp_19jul10_p06z.pdf+mary-ann+martinek+observer&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au Refer to http://www.mediaman.com.au/interviews/ashlong.html "Ash Long, Director, Editor & Proprietor: The Melbourne Observer, Ash Long Media and Media Flash - 22nd April 2003 The Ash Long story starts in 1969 as a 12-year-old selling newspapers door-to-door in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. This was with the Sunday Observer, then later with the Nation Review. Learned every aspect of newspaper production: distribution, production, editorial, advertising sales, strategy, management and ownership. Why is his article about STK not considered valid? m2 13:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary-ann martinek (talk • contribs)

The "reference" you provided begins "‘Snake man’ Raymond Hoser and chocolate seller Mary-Ann Martinek have asked us to publish their belief ...". That's not journalism, it's just pov-pushing. WWGB (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not right, the article reference begins with the news title "SAM THE KOALA" and the first sentence begins as you say. What's pov-pushing, anyhow is it actually written by a seasoned media journalist who edits the news articles. He has to apply the Principles of Journalism to his media work and so I refer you to this archived comment of March2010 - "I'm sorry, but they're not really what we're looking for. You mentioned that it was widely reported, and if so then that would be great, as it would mean we might be able to include the information. But those both appear to be by the same author as the article, and one is a press release while the other a self-made video. Is there something that we can count as a reliable source that is independent of AJH? It would help a lot if there was. - Bilby (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2010 (124.177.50.202 (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

Are you seriously claiming that a brief mention of your opinions on this matter - at your own request - is actually journalism and somehow constitutes a reliable independent source? Obviously you have no idea of what journalism is. This so-called "article" has no more merit as a reliable source than has a published letter - which is exactly zero. Afterwriting (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That is what journalism is, a journalist will not print anything unless they see all the documents too. It's called vetting the material and Ash Long read the material and published an article. It's not correct to suggest he would not have checked his sources. He did, so yes I do expect that his credibility should stand because when do you stop the criticism of who is a journalist and who is not. I have given you a link saying Ash Long is highly regarded in his profession and that he publishes articles that must comply with the Code of Ethics, which is worth reading too as it shows the rules (like wiki has rules) all newsmedia print should respect the Codes of Ethics that australian journalists must apply to their own work. When their media articles do not meet those standards they are summarily removed from the news websites eg: as some References about STK have already been removed thus far because the articles themselves were misleading, inaccurate and incomplete. Those news links were deleted by news.com.au themselves which leaves up a page with a message "this article cannot be found". m2 00:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary-ann martinek (talk • contribs)

You cannot seriously call it an "article" or a piece of "journalism". At best it is only an "announcement" or a "report" of your views published at your own request. To call it "journalism" or an "article" is completely ridiculous. Afterwriting (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is what your site requires and it has rules about seeking outside references. Journalism is often printed sqwirmalism of what is truth, fantasy or pov-pushing as one kindly described it. It's published in a newspaper, it was edited so mate it's able to BE included in place from whence it was struck out. Can't quibble with you about quality of content in journalism as the best stuff is raw and unedited but that generally never gets into newspapers. Just ask your founder Julian Assange what makes best documented journalism, since he's just released 90,000 pages of garble that few can understand without knowing the military jargon it's written in. m2 15:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary-ann martinek (talk • contribs)

Well, I read alot of stuff lately that can't possibly be considered as high quality journalism but it's what they serve up, fast factless but edible. For example News Ltd and the Melbourne Storm stuff, which isn't that far removed from being accused of being a blanket censorship of the truth and we are yet to see the whole saga unfold. Millionaire Dick Smith recently said News Ltd was (quote) "and evil empire" and the only two places I found that published was at "Millionaire wants Murdoch out of Australia" date Monday, July 26, 2010 at http://www.radiofiji.com.fj/fullstory.php?id=29534 and in a gossip column. Read this for censorship <ref."News gags its Storm website critics" by MARK HAWTHORNE dated July 27, 2010 http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/news-gags-its-storm-website-critics-20100726-10soh.html?from=age_sb 124.177.50.202 (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does consider the quality of a source. Just because it's published "somewhere", if that "somewhere" is not WP:RS, it's not useful to include here. Reprinting a quote, at someone's request, is not a reliable source for anything other than that that person said it. As a secondary source, it would at best also provide for notability of the topic of the quote. But definitely not for the quoter or his position. Especially in a short-shots collection of few-sentence capsules, there is definitely no space for analysis, and the format itself makes it clear that it's just one person saying one thing with no attempt to put this position in context. Lots of major news sources have collections of "They Said It" quotes, with no evidence of the selection criteria (insightful, clever wording, funny, or outlandish WP:FRINGE). DMacks (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

News References that were 'Removed' by Australian Press Council Adjudication held on 13Oct2010

(I dont know where this goes) I recommend WIKI remove references to all the Herald Sun articles dated 11 and 12 August 2009. The articles were removed that is why they no longer appear on the Herald Sun website which is the only authentic source. On 13 October 2010, the Australian Press Council adjudicated and upheld a complaint which resulted in the Herald Sun being told to take down all articles that were inaccurate, unfair and misleading. The reason WIKI cannot use the url links is that these links now go to a PAGE NOT FOUND message. I have tonight removed the Reference 19 "15:56, 26 October 2010 Mary-ann martinek (talk | contribs) (9,277 bytes) (→Trademark dispute: Removing an article REF19 that the Australian Press Council have adjudicated at a Hearing on 13Oct2010. The decision made is that the Herald Sun will remove the article from it) (undo)" and request it remain removed. Thankyou.15:56, 26 October 2010 Mary-ann martinek (talk | contribs) (9,277 bytes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary-ann martinek (talk • contribs)

What is the actual relevance of any of this to the Sam the Koala story? RE: Trademark dispute:

RE: (cur | prev) 13:11, 29 October 2010 Afterwriting (talk | contribs) (8,910 bytes) (→ Removed section. Trademark dispute: What is the actual relevance of any of this to the Sam the Koala story? Take to discussion if you insist.) (undo)

Thankyou Afterwriting for making this point "What is the actual relevance" because when I came upon the wiki information way back it was making public statement about me personally using inaccurately published news articles which have all since been removed by an Adjudication Hearing Decision of the Australian Press Council, on 13 October 2010, which must now be published prominently on 4 November 2010 by HWT to correct the public record. The relevance was not of my making and if Wiki does want the accurate details about the "Trademark Dispute" published for others to read then please ensure you all cite references from the actual History Page of IPAustralia like I have done. I repeat it here for discussion because Oppositions are complex matters and cannot be explained only by referencing any poorly researched newspaper articles that 'speculated' on what my intentions were. The accurate TradeMark Dispute information WEF today is this as shown, in italics:

== Trademark dispute == On 20 February 2009 and 13 March 2009, an application was made to register the words "Sam the Koala" as a trademark in Class 30 (for chocolates) and as a trademark in Class 16 (for colouring-in books). The applications were approved for Acceptance of Registration of a Trademark on 25 June 2009 and 16 July 2009 respectively. An Opposition Notice was lodged by DSE in September 2009 and that opposition outcome is still pending a final decision by IPAustralia. Media published the trademark applications which led to a dispute called an Opposition Notice.

On 27 July 2010 the DSE applied for a new trademark TM1374401, Sam The Koala CFA, in Class32 (Beverages), Class33 (Alcoholic beverages), Class41 ( Education, training and cultural activities), and Class43 ( Services for providing food and drink), and 44 ( Veterinary services and hygienic and beauty care for animals) , however the DSE Application TM1374401 was issued an Adverse Report1 on 21 September 2010.

On 27 July 2010 the DSE applied for a new trademark TM1374402, Sam The Koala, in Class32 (Beverages), Class33 (Alcoholic beverages), Class41 (Education, training and cultural activities), and Class43 (Services for providing food and drink), and Class44 (Veterinary services and hygienic and beauty care for animals) , however the DSE Application TM1374402 was issued an Adverse Report1 on 27 August 2010.

m2 13:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

References

References that expire

May I suggest that we use WebCite here? DS (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Policy on linking the YouTube Video?

Given the importance of the YouTube link and its >1,000,000 views to this topic being notable I'm a little surprised there isn't at least a reference or external link to the video itself. Is this solely a copyright concern? I did notice the heraldsun.com.au watermark in the corner of the video so I haven't added it myself, but I'm generally not at all clear on when YouTube links are appropriate for topics wherein popularity on YouTube itself materially contributes to notability. It seems inferior to cite a third-party source that cites the number of YouTube hits as of a (sometimes quite distant) date rather than the video itself. Where is the line at which copyright infringement concern trumps informational value? Should that policy be revisited in light of YouTube's own increased efforts to reduce copyright violations? And most importantly, is there a policy or topic page where this is discussed and consensus is formed? Thomas Craven 19:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcraven (talk • contribs)

Quote from David Tree

"“It wasn’t taken on the Saturday and no one said it was.” It was taken about a week before while we were trying to get the Delburn Fire complex under control. That fire burnt 60000 hectares and destroyed thirty homes and was still burning out of control a week later when the Kinglake fire complex started.”"

Source is Freemasonry Victoria Magazine, ISSUE 119 AUTUMN 2009, Page 14. It can be accessed here http://www.freemasonsvic.net.au/news/magazine-publications/ Melbournemason (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the importance of the YouTube link