This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Collet Barker 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Collet Barker has been listed as an explorer of WA? Is this because he hailed from there, or he explored there? I would suggest that unless he explored WA, the cat should be removed.
SauliH07:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Needs work
I think this needs a lot of work, first in its structure. Barker dies in the second paragraph, and then we have five paragraphs about him at Port Essington, when he was presumably still alive. And Sturt didn't name Mount Barker after him, someone else did much later. Sturt was confused about his longitude, and thought it was Mount Lofty he was looking at.
Peter Bell (
talk)
09:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Categorisation - Category:Murdered explorers
User:William Allen Simpson has just removed this article from Category:Murdered explorers, giving as his reason that Barker was "military, killed by natives in self-defense", and as part of a failed
wider CFD discussion, where
User:Marcocapelle commented that:
"Most people in this category weren't military and even for the few who were, like Collet Barker, it was not an assassination. He was murdered as an explorer, not as military."
From accounts of people who were there on April 30 when Barker’s exploring party arrived at the Murray River outlet, Barker decided to cross it alone, clad only in his underwear. An eyewitness version tells of his last sighting: He "fastened his compass on his head, he plunged into the water, and with difficulty gained the other side; to effect which took him nine minutes and fifty-eight seconds. His anxious comrades saw him ascend the hillock and take several bearings; he then descended the farther side, and was never seen by them again".
Furthermore:
"Barker's reputation as an enlightened confidant of the Aboriginal people, a reputation won at the continent's northern garrison at Fort Wellington and at the western settlement of King George Sound, proved no shield against the spears of southerners incensed at the unbridled passions of Europeans."
(Source: R.M. Gibbs, 2013, Under the Burning Sun - a history of colonial South Australia, 1836-1900 p.8.
ISBN978-1-921601-85-9)
Although the exact details of the encounter and killing are unknown, Barker was alone, unarmed, in his underwear, and from his reputation, probably anxious to make amicable contact with the Ngarrindjeri people he met. So, describing his death as being carried out in "self defence" by the Aboriginal people he met seems unlikely, and possibly has more to do with encountering individuals who bore personal grudges against Europeans, due to prior encounters with sealers.
It is worth noting that the area of the Coorong was quite densely populated by numerous Ngarrindjeri clans, and that when the
Maria massacre took place here less than ten years later, the survivors were apparently initially treated in a friendly manner, before being killed under more complex circumstances.
Bahudhara (
talk)
16:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Sources do not agree that this was murder. We do not categorize when the sources cannot agree.
Sources indicate that he was a serving military officer. We do not categorize deaths of military officers on duty as murder. Dying is their duty.
Sources indicate that natives in that locale had been previously raped and enslaved by earlier white explorers. Killing your oppressor is always self-defense, not murder. Nobody cares that he stripped to his underwear for swimming, a common practice. Nobody cares whether in the past he had been kinder than other whites. They have no way of knowing about his state of mind or his reputation.
Nobody agreed with Marcocapelle during the CfD, either.
Yet Marcocapelle has since agreed that Barker "may be purged for not being an explorer in the strictest meaning of the word."
Therefore, I'm removing the errant category again.
Self-defense is never murder. In this case, against whalers and sealers who had killed and enslaved them. Also, he was military at the time. Deaths of military during recognizance are not murder. In fact, nothing he did meets the usual meaning of explorer. He was a long-time fort commander, using a ship to map inlets. The explorers would have been the whalers and sealers who came before him. His crew was merely mapping, a standard military exercize. Sometimes our article sources are puff pieces, and that POV gets sucked into the articles. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
13:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
At most he may be purged for not being an explorer in the strictest meaning of the word, but that is pretty far-fetched. Self-defense is definitely not a good reason to purge.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
14:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
some of these allegedly "murdered" explorers aren't really murdered defined objectively:
John Charles Darke killed by Australian or Tasmanian Aboriginal people on whose land he was trespassing; the biography of
Paul Crampel doesn't say he was murdered only that he was killed; the biography of
George W. Hayward says "Controversy and mystery surrounded Hayward's death." suffice to say that beyond a reasonable doubt standard cannot be overcome;
Edmund Kennedy also killed by Australian Aboriginal people on whose land he was trespassing; the biography of
Alexander Gordon Laing was "killed" but only conjectures as to cause "He may have been strangled by Tuareg raiders ..." I think that using "murdered" is a loaded term and "killed" should be the norm for all these explorer categories.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
23:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)reply