Talk:Ned Kelly

Police-murderer?

Why does the lead paragraph describe him as a police-murderer? Are police lives more valuable in Australia? Sorry. I'm American. Maybe I don't get it because we at least pretend to value all human life equally even if we dont always live up to it. And also everyone here hates the police except the police, their wives/husbands, and the mob bosses that pay them to ignore their crimes. And Republicans, I guess. They want to enforce their way of life on everyone else by any means necessary. But seriously, are we suggesting that killing a policeman is a worse crime than killing someome else? Not if Im on the jury. 2600:1702:AC1:3BA0:8DB:1F30:8D14:FE09 (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Because Kelly was convicted of murdering a policeman. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Was he? The article says he "was convicted of the willful murder of Lonigan". Yes, he murdered someone who was a policeman, but it's not clear to me that the crime was different form murdering a non-policeman. The source is a book, so I can't check. HiLo48 (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Back in those days the police and government were very corrupt and they regarded non-police officers not as highly. Ned shooting the officers also showed that if he could kill some police officers then he could easily kill some commoners, so the people feared him. King kobra2 (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Not mentioned at all in the lead NotHoratio (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think "police-murderer" is an accurate and fair description in Kelly's case since he basically made it his mission to murder policemen. They were his primary target. - ~2026-41339-58 (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Reason for killing officers

I think that in the paragraph on the reasoning of Ned killing officers during stringybark incident there should be a mention that in Ned's letters he says that he only killed constable Kennedy because he saw the constable already shot multiple times and wanted to give him mercy. ( I would have edited it myself but I have already been for editing other pages badly, so hopefully someone else with more experience can do it (: ) King kobra2 (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentence of lead

@Captain Cornwall I have again tried to reach a compromise. In a biographical article, the first sentence of the lead should establish: "The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)" MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. My previous compromise attempt read: "Ned Kelly was an Australian bushranger, gang leader, outlaw, bank-robber and police-murderer." I have dropped "outlaw" and "bank robber". You prefer simply "bushranger and gang leader". The problem is that a gang leader can mean anything from a juvenile delinquent who steals sand shoes from other gangs to the mastermind a a major criminal organisation. Kelly and his gang were most notable for robbing banks and killing three police officers. Kelly was convicted and hanged because he killed policemen. I see no reason why the first sentence of the lead should not concisely state exactly what he did. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Kelly is more notable for his mythology/folk hero status than his actual life and deeds. The lede should reflect that. NotHoratio (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The lead is accurate and reflects the reliable sources. The contested nature of his legacy is discussed in the article and accurately summarised in the lead. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned at all in the lead. It should be NotHoratio (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is what the lead says: "In the century after his death, Kelly became a cultural icon, inspiring numerous depictions in popular culture, and is the subject of more biographies than any other Australian. Kelly remains a divisive figure in Australia, regarded variously as a Robin Hood-like folk hero and symbol of national identity, or as a murderous villain and terrorist. The journalist Martin Flanagan wrote: "What makes Ned a legend is not that everyone sees him the same—it's that everyone sees him. Like a bushfire on the horizon casting its red glow into the night."

When the reliable sources show that someone's "folk hero" status is contested, we have to note that fairly rather than take one side in a debate. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You mean buried in lead? That should be in the forefront, rather than the bland and misleading bushranger and murderer, which is not why Kelly is significant. His mythology is more important than the pedestrian details of his crimes. I would support moving that or something similar to the top of the article NotHoratio (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The lead follows the article in discussing Kelly's life then his legacy. To say his legacy is "buried" in the lead is to assume that the average reader of wikipedia doesn't have the attention span to read three paragraphs let alone the entire article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Why is Ned Kelly notable? NotHoratio (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

How did Ned kelly get caught by the police

How did ned kelly get caught by the police ~2026-25795-07 (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Read the article and find out. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)