Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Indigenous names

I just saw that the page for Melbourne has the local Aboriginal name ‘Naarm’ as an alternate name, which is good. I went ahead and added ‘Meanjin’ to Brisbane and ‘Djilang/Djalang’ to Geelong, both the local indigenous names for these respective areas.

I want to put forward a proposal that this practise be standardised across all Wikipedia articles covering Australian places, cities, etc where the indigenous name is known. Within the last couple of years, it has become increasingly common in popular media for the indigenous names of places to appear prominently alongside the anglicised names when such places are referenced. Geelongite (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The indigenous name should be in the lead, with references. WWGB (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

For those interested, there are some long, "interesting" and ongoing discussion at Talk:Perth about this topic. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• care should be taken to differentiate between Metro areas, regions, and the suburb name using the wrong naming will do more harm to Wikipedia than not having it. We are dont do original research, and exceptional claims need exceptional sources with Indigenous names we should be applying them to Metro areas without first having exceptionally robust cultural sources that have had significant time to gain acceptance. Its only 30 year since a council of Elders agreed to standardise Noongar for teaching in schools, in the last 10 years there have strong identity push back on the spelling with individual Noongar countries & families adopting unique spellings associated with them by previous record creators. Gnangarra 15:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Geelongite, your changes are highly controversial because you added to many articles to infobox aboriginal name as "native name". The problem is that the cities did not have an official Aboriginal name as native even for a single day. Aboriginal names apply to areas, not cities, and cannot function as native names for cities in the infobox. This is contrary to the common sense and Wikipedia standards. The discussion should be about removing from the article Melbourne, which is the only article to use the Aboriginal name as the official native name in infobox. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Besides, I have already noticed before that the problem of Aboriginal names in the articles is a serious problem for WIkipedia and its standards. This is an attempt to introduce Australian politics into the encyclopedia. The problem is big and extremely absurdal, because Australian users here are forgetting any common sense. I would like to remind you that the aboriginal names you want to use, were created in the 20th century and are written in the Latin alphabet. For example: name of "Sydney" was created earlier than Aboriginal name of "Gadi". Of course, the Aborigines used the name verbally and phonetically, but "Gadi" is a creation from the 20th century. Other Aboriginal names also. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • This is an absurd argument. Words are not "20th century words" because their spellings were codified then. Plus, it's curious how the presence of indigenous names is seen by you as "political". Do you consider coordinated campaign to EXCLUDE indigenous names from Australian articles to be just as political? I'm real curious. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 11:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • While you make an interesting point, your dates are off, at least in respect to WA. Nyungar language was being written down according Europeans records by the early 1800's(19th century if you like). George Fletcher Moore in the 1840's started to create an Ornithology and publish these http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article65582410 In the 1990's Nyungar elders came together to set a standardize spelling list for the Department of Education for consistent teaching Noongar(yes the spelling switch is intentional) in public schools. In the 1980's a set of spelling was produced from the words of Tom Bennell(Yelakitj) for the Catholic Education Association, he was a Nyungar Elder, author, professor, and most importantly he spoken the language as taught by elders some of whom walked the country before European settlement. All of his works including audio and video recordings are held at UWA. All the spellings were based on original records from 1800's. Personal experience(intangible knowledge) after coming together there has been a parting of ways with nyoongar language spellings, as its become part of enriching each communities identity, through all of this the spoken has remained consistent. The whole premise of colonialism and underwriting settlement was that Aboriginals werent people they had no inteligence, no countries, no systems of government, no form written word so it was not in the interests of the Governors of each colony to even seak out information and to kill anyone Aboriginal person who tried. Care must be taken to ensure what ever source used has the knowledge to speak, as its become common for non Whadjuk nyungars to speak/write about whadjuk country with out knowing what they are talking about. It pays to spend sometime learning rather than just chasing sources the pedantry at Perth talk absolutely ignores the knowledge from people like Fanny Balbuk that the "big swap" pre settlement was the whole area from Matagarup to Northbrigde, not just a point of land that was created by infill post settlement(point fraser). Chasing sources to justify your reasonings is not writing an encyclopeadia, first you need to also take time to learn this lack of learning or willingness to to blindly following what google confirms of your interest and apply WP policies is not sharing the sum of all knowledge. Booroloo is not the equivalent of Perth Metropolitan area, its the place where a small colonial outpost was started in 1829 where the rubbish of those people was thrown into the swamps and eventually built upon. When it come to Indigenous knowledge first know who is speaking, is it a 2nd generation Greek descendent, a New South Welshman of European descent, A Balladong nyoongar, a Whadjuk Nyungar, or Yuet Nyungar. The secondly know where they are speaking from, Wikipedia is a work n progress we dont need to resolve these words today because the whim of a football club to change its name for two weeks, or because a government agency is thrown away millions of dollars to a corrupt global Soccer association. Wikipedia is not gaming platform, accept you dont know, that the answers arent forth coming today, or that there just isnt extensive general acceptance of a term we follow we dont make stick to the accept culture is not cutting edge science its a collective acceptance of any change. Gnangarra 01:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

    It was not everywhere in the nineteenth century, some aboriginal names were created only in the twentieth century, it depends on the region. Besides, it doesn't change anything. The current Aboriginal names are based on the Latin alphabet that the Europeans brought. First the Europeans gave their European / British names to different parts of Australia, then the Aborigines learned to use the Latin alphabet and try to write their (Aboriginal) names. So, current Aboriginal names never have been names that can be called as "native name" for the city in infobox. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

    This is a really curious argument so if you want to use it a lot I'd like to see it expanded. I don't think that transliterating words from spoken-only languages is a reasonable reason for saying that those words didn't exist though? They are the same words? Poketama (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    Of course, the argument can be expanded, but I think there is no need. Basically, I use this argument to discuss about the use of aboriginal names in an intro of article or infobox. If, for example, the name "Gadi", written in the Latin alphabet, was created later than the English name - why should we use it in the intro or infobox? Let's not throw everything to the infobox or the first sentence of the article. It is a place for the most important and useful data, not for a modern translation/transcription of a word that is not known in the world at all. A mention in the Etymology and / or History section is enough. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 08:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    Do you have a reference for why you think it would be the case that a name adopted later would not be applicable for use in the lead?

    Besides that, your argument that writing the name down makes it a new name just doesn't really hold water for me and if you can show any precedent for that I would be interested.

    And again, yes it would be the case if it was 'not known in the world at all'. But this is not what my buddies call the city, or a small group of foreign language speakers, but the name used by the peoples who have lived in that region for millennia and which is further widely used and understood by people from outside of that group. But even without widespread non-Aboriginal usage of the word, my argument from Wikipedia's guidelines is that the name is used by the region's original inhabitants and is therefore important enough for inclusion. Poketama (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    So according to Subtropical Man's logic then, a Beijing was technically never spelt that way until the 20th century, (being of course called 北京), the article on Beijing cannot contain that name any more. Please see that this is absurd. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 12:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

    spend sometime learning rather than ... ignores the knowledge from people like Fanny Balbuk that the "big swap" pre settlement was the whole area from Matagarup to Northbrigde — Perhaps someone could add to the relevant section of the article some more specific citation details, mentioning Fanny Balbuk's name, a specific date and/or recording name/title and (best of all) a URL to a webpage that mentions or includes or links to that knowledge. It would be easier to learn and be less ignorant if it were a bit easier to locate the knowledge. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    I appreciate your in-depth contribution into this issue and have left the Perth article alone as I realise I do not have enough information to wade into that. It is very clear and has been told to me by multiple people that spellings and name usage are highly political issues within Aboriginal communities so I do highly recommend making sure that names are well-cited. Poketama (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry @Subtropical-man, the reasoning that transliteration into an alphabet means the underlying word is not 'native' is absurd! Words exist in abstract - they don't only exist when they're written down. It doesn't matter what alphabet you use. Can we put this flawed argument to bed? Ljgua124 (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  if the word has problems with the written form, it means that it is not worth attention - not suitable to put it in the intro or infobox. The fact that a word exists does not mean that we should give the right to be placed in the most important part of the article. The mere existence of a word is not enough to intro. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  What is the 'problem' with the word in the written form? The fact it was not in a written form until it was transliterated into the latin alphabet? That is what you are implying, and it is nonsensical.

  No one has put forward an argument that 'because the word exists, it should be added to the infobox'. It should be added for those other reasons that others have mentioned: its contemporary and traditional uses. Ljgua124 (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly. If the opponents of indigenous names in Australian articles have to lead with the metrically nonsensical argument that a language isn't a language until it's written, there probably isn't much else to stand on. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 12:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  No, that's just an additional argument. The main argument has been made several times in this discussion. Aboriginal names refer to an area, not a city. The region where Sydney is located is Gabi to Aborigines, but it is a region, not a city. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  "Aborigines" is not regarded as correct usage these days. I don't mean to be rude, but if you do not have the cultural competence to know this, you perhaps should not be driving this campaign to minimise the use of indigenous Australian names from Australian articles. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 03:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)\

  Randwicked, This is another comment in which you attack me or attack my opinion. You practically do nothing else in the discussion [1][2]. These are Wikipedia:Personal attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment. Please stop commenting and trolling my opinions. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 05:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's not attacking you to point out that the words you choose to use in this argument are outdated and possibly culturally offensive, nor to point out that the arguments you chose to lead with demonstrate ignorance about the nature of language and are irrelevant. I'm genuinely sorry if you find me pointing this out as offensive, and I note I edited my original comments a few days ago because I myself thought they were unfair to you. But you are persisting in pushing for an erasure of evidenced and well cited names, despite the fact several Aboriginal wikipedians have attested to them in direct response to you. What expertise exactly are you claiming in this area? What is the basis for your continued assertion that 'Aboriginal names refer to an area, not a city', when the sources say otherwise? Please don't attempt to weaponise wikipedia policy against me, because you think I'm challenging your arguments unfairly. You're championing a pretty culturally loaded revision to multiple Australian articles. It's not clear you have the expertise to do so. I definitely don't, and would defer to the Aboriginal language experts already in this thread, but if you want to lead the charge, expect it to be met.

  I'm sorry I let my anger over this issue colour my earlier comments to you to the point you thought them harrassment. But try to understand the context you choose to wade into. For months now anonymous users have been stripping the Aboriginal names from Australian city articles, often using a tag team approach. Given the deep scars that colonial names cover up cf. language erasure and cultural genocide, a small but significant part of redress for past wrongs is the rediscovery of names and their reapplication. To put it finely, in this country a lot of racists don't like this approach, and when you see a coordinated effort between anonymous accounts like that it's usually being driven with a huge agenda. Consider whether it's truly wise to take this issue and run with it, given political and cultural issues and arguments involved, if you don't have a strong grounding in them, and if that isn't your agenda, which I am certain it isn't. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 07:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  Randwicked, you wrote: "part of redress for past wrongs is the rediscovery of names and their reapplication" - this quote and other parts of your text only show that you have forgotten where we are. This is the Wikipedia, encyclopedia, this is not place for "redress" for anyone. It's possible Australia's social policy wants a "redress", but the Wikipedia is not owned by either the Australians or the Australian Government. The facts are this: even considering that the aboriginal spoken (non-written) form was before the rise of cities in Australia, it was for a region / area, not a cities. Please see the standards, including an example of the city of Gdańsk / Danzig in Wikipedia:Manual of Style: Danzig was official name of the city. The area where the city of Gdańsk / former Danzig is Polish "Kaszuby" (historical region ). Article of Gdańsk will never show name of "Kaszuby" as native name for city because this is name for historical region, not a city. A perfect other example is New York City above: if New York City lies in an area that 500 years ago was called "The Great Swamp", it does not mean that in an article about New York you should write: "New York City (formerly The Great Swamp) - city in the United States... (...)". It doesn't matter what the Indians called the region, the city is a different entity. Sure, we can mention the region's aboriginal name in the article, but never in the first sentence or infobox. For this existed etymology or history section. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 08:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  Randwicked actually brings up a good point, there has been a consistent effort by a small number of individuals in what appears to be a coordinated effort to remove the Indigenous names from articles despite the fact they are correctly sourced and styled in parentheses as per Wikipedia's own guidelines. This whole discussion and the arguments that have been put forward against the usage of the names basically play into that. The comparisons of 'The Great Swamp' aren't going unnoticed, I'm so used to people reducing Indigenous culture as though it were pre-historic, primitive and swamp-like. 500 years ago, Sydney was called Gadi and obviously you accept that - and take note of the spelling please, it's bordering intentional disrespect to continuously get it wrong - Gadi was the name my ancestors used for their country, their settlement, the society they were a part of. It is as much the area as it is the people, the place, the community, the structured settlement with which they lived in - and which I live in today. That is one huge difference to 'The Great Swamp'. The other huge difference is that the name Gadi is still used today, by Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples alike, as such, it is not something that can be relegated to the history section, because it is not just history, it is currently used. It is not 'Sydney (formerly Gadi)', it is 'Sydney (Gadi)'. We still use the name today, and regardless of how many people call it Sydney or Gadi, both names are valid and both names apply - the name doesn't cease to be valid just because it has in many ways been drowned out, and the name doesn't cease to be valid because it has been forcibly merged into the present day city with attempts to erase the Indigenous culture - the name is still used today and is increasingly being recognised again, and rightfully so. By rights, I absolutely should not recognise the name Sydney as a valid name, given what has happened to my own family members in the process, but I accept that what happened happened, and I reluctantly accept that the names now have a place side by side due to their recognition - with neither having prominence over the other, and neither being shoved out of sight out of mind. I believe we should stick to Wikipedia's own guidelines. GadigalGuy (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  The comparisons of 'The Great Swamp' aren't going unnoticed, ... reducing Indigenous culture as though it were pre-historic, primitive and swamp-like — You might consider assuming good faith, rather than presuming that "swamp" is derogatory. The Noongar name for Perth, Boorloo, is reliably sourced as meaning "big swamp". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  I would agree with Randwicked's comments that Subtropical-man does not appear to have enough cultural context of Aboriginal or Australian issues. This is shown on this page and on the Talk:Perth page, including their persistent usage of the word 'aborigines' despite being informed it is widely considered a slur in Australia. They have repeatedly argued with Aboriginal users about their own culture, while arguing from a 'logical' position that ignores the context of what the Aboriginal users are saying. The European Wikipedia standard for placenames is simply not replicable in an Australian context and it's rather odd that one would think that you could have a standard that blanket covers the entire English language Wikipedia. Additionally they cite the Manual of Style (where in the manual of style?) but ignore all references to other standards that contradict their point of view.

  Finally, while there are some standards in place, there is a clear debate that is being had around whether the standards Subtropical-Man quotes are suitable for Australian Wikipedia articles. So far, this debate has shown that they are not - or would require substantial clarification and editing. As such, and as the original poster stated, new standards must be developed as New Zealand Wikipedia has done. Old standards which are not suitable for the context cannot stand in the way of reaching a new consensus: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Poketama (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Conventions/Indigenous draft needs to be resurrected and expanded to include place names Mitch Ames (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

A standard already exists for such alternative names which are mentioned in italics within brackets at the start of an article. As such, I believe no change is necessary. It’s worth noting that though alternate names (such as Aboriginal ones) may exist and be of prominence enough to be mentioned, they are generally not primary or official names as is that which is mentioned in the infobox for a place. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Both in the infobox and in the first sentence of the article, we can use the previous official names of the city - I repeat - the city, while other names, e.g. geographic, Aboriginal, etc. - are information intended for the etymology or history section. For example, the Aboriginal name "Gabi" refers to certain areas where Sydney is postponed, does not mean that "Gabi" = "Sydney". Sydney is city, "Gabi" is Aboriginal name for area. If, for example, New York City lies in an area that 500 years ago was called "The Great Swamp", it does not mean that in an article about New York you should write: "New York City (formerly The Great Swamp) - city in the United States... (...) ". It's logical Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I refer to your comments on the Sydney talk-page, which have been well responded to by user GadigalGuy who is a Gadigal man from Sydney.

"The location that Sydney (city) and Greater Sydney now sits on has historical names which are still, today, used to refer to the exact same locations, people have lived on this exact same land regardless of when it was given the name 'Sydney', therefore they are valid Alternative (Historical) Names. ...

Also I notice that your edit summaries have suggested that Gadi only refers to Watsons Bay, that shows a clear lack of understanding of the Dharug language. As such, I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify this: I am a Gadigal person, which in Dharug literally translates to 'Man of Gadi', Gadi being the place. I am from Gadi, however I am not from Watsons Bay because Gadigal Country (Gadi) is significantly larger than a landmark. Gadi comprises of the majority of the 'Sydney' inner-east, including the geographical centre of 'Sydney', hence why Sydney is also known as Gadi." Poketama (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

This is probably a mistake - you mistook me for another user. Second point: your opinion or that of another user who identifies with the name as indigenous or non-indigenous not a reliable source of information for Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Your point about New York makes sense, but it misses that there is contemporary usage of these names to refer to the city - whereas there is not a contemporary Native American group referring to NYC as 'The Great Swamp'. Poketama (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

...and it couldn't be - The Great Swamp 'is the name of a region / area, not a city. If the city was officially called 'The Great Swamp' and later changed to New York City then ok, but if the area has a name 'The Great Swamp' and an city was built on it, the situation is completely different. 'The Great Swamp' is name of area, not city. Exactly the same as in the case of Australian cities. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not the exact same case at all. From what I can see, 'The Great Swamp' is akin to a national park, where Gadi and other Indigenous places are human settlements with permanent populations & structured societies that have been (forcibly) merged into the present day locations and given a new name.GadigalGuy (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Subtropical-man. Indigenous names refer to the geographical region the city was built upon, not the city itself. Unless they are being used by Indigenous groups to refer to the cities themselves, they belong in an Etymology or History section rather than in an infobox as an alternative name. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • This is a fair point. I take care to cite sources and research heavily to make sure that the names are used by contemporary Aboriginal communities for the city, rather than an archaic name for a region. In areas I'm unsure of I don't mess with. For Sydney, there is a long discussion on the talk page with the user GadigalGuy who is a Gadigal man who has provided plenty of sources to dispute Subtropical-man's point that the name is not used for the city. Poketama (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  For example, I just added citations for the use of Meeanjin as the name for Brisbane. The first citation I use is directly from the Turrbal Aboriginal Corporation stating "The traditional name of Brisbane is Meeanjin". This is information directly from the foremost contemporary Turrbal group. Is that not indisputable? Poketama (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  • I think that is disputable, because it's not very clear what they mean by traditional name for Brisbane. I doubt Meeanjin is bein used in the present day by Indigenous groups to refer to the city. It seems more likely the TAC are referring to a historical name used for the region. Because there exists a level of doubt, I would prefer Meeanjin is presented as a traditional name (in an Etymology or History section) rather than an alternative name, until that can be settled decisively. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I mean look at the second source you've cited. The SBS clearly state "'Meanjin' is the Turrbal name for the section of Turrbal Country that Brisbane was built on.", which would support the interpretation of the TAC statement I gave above. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    • While I understand your reasoning, 'Traditional' is widely used in a particular Aboriginal context. When an Aboriginal person gives a Welcome to Country acknowledging themselves as the 'Traditional Owners' they are not acknowledging they don't own the land anymore. They are acknowledging the ongoing tradition. So I'd argue that 'Traditional name' is equal in this context. I know for a fact that present day Indigenous groups do refer to the city as Meeanjin, and just need time to compile citations. Instead of deleting or moving things around based on conjecture - resulting in edit warring and wasted time - it is more effective to disprove or prove the argument and finish it. Poketama (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    Additionally, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines Relevant foreign language names (... that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Poketama (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    Just a quick example: https://www.facebook.com/meeanjincentre/ "We're a majority Aboriginal organisation passionate about bringing cultural nourishment to Meeanjin (Brisbane) for SEQ mob and beyond." Poketama (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    • @Poketama:, take into account that sources work both ways. If there are 20 sources: 10 sources who showing "Gabi" as area / region and 10 sources who showing "Gabi" as a city, you are not allowed to choose just 10 sources that are in line with your point of view and you are not allowed to enter name of "Gabi" only as a city (in intro or/and infobox) relying only on the sources you choose, which are in line with your opinion. This is breach fundamental rules of Wikipedia, i.e. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If there are different sources, and only some of them describe the name "Gabi" as the city of Sydney (Greater Capital City Statistical Area), it is too controversial and obscure to use the name in the intro or / and infobox in the article of the city. Intro or infobox is not a place for controversial and debatable things. The Etymology or History sections may be used to describe this name. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 07:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

      Can you elaborate on this? I understand your point, but I have cited sources that are reputable while you have not cited sources that negate my sources. I think with your example, you would have to cite 20 sources that say Gabi does NOT refer to a city. Otherwise, they are just sources that say that the word has two meanings, not that the referal to the city is negated. Poketama (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

      • Poketama, Have I written about some kind of negation somewhere? they are sources that say that the word has two meanings, so - therefore the word "Gabi" cannot be interpreted only as the equivalent of the city of Sydney and the name "Gabi" cannot be in the article intro or infobox as the city name, because this name has many meanings. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 04:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

      If there are 10 sources which show 'Gabi' as an area/region, and 10 only showing 'Gabi' as a city, then it is patently clear that 'Gabi' refers both to the area/region and to the city. There's no reason why it can't refer to both. And if it has usage which refers to the term as being the city, there is no principle that means the name shouldn't be listed.

      Instead, it really should be asked on what basis should it not be listed, given the contemporary usage of the name, an Indigenous name, for the built structure of Sydney, by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians? Ljgua124 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

    • You might "know it for a fact" but the sources you've provided don't show that. The SBS source plainly contradicts your interpretation of the TAC website (which is very ambiguous to start with). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    And Facebook is not a reliable source (WP:UGC). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    I understand Facebook is not a citation, I used it as a quick example to show that it is in fact in use by the Aboriginal community to refer to the city. Poketama (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    • Ok. But I will again stress that you haven't provided a source that indicates Indigenous peoples use that name to refer to the city itself. In fact, one of the sources you have given contradicts your claim entirely. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

      I've provided an informal source to show that this is the case, and will follow up with formal sources when I have time.

      I disagree with your statement that it contradicts my claim, a region and city can share a name. The SBS article does not say 'Aboriginal people living in Brisbane do not call the city Meeanjin' Poketama (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is reasonable, and for most smaller settlements, probably wouldn't be included in an infobox. But these words have taken on expanded meanings, and are now applied to the built structure upon which the land (or part thereof) was traditionally named. I would argue in these instances the words have entered the Australian English lexicon, though they are still obviously words of the language from which they are derived. In such instances, it would be most accurate to say that the contemporary Aboriginal language name for the settlement is derived from the traditional name for the area on which the settlement was built. But that settlement would still take on the Aboriginal language name. 'Native name' does not imply that the name can be in traditional use only. Ljgua124 (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• we are not dealing with cutting edge technology, we are working with cultural areas we have time to allow for more information before even posting a name. Metropolitan areas, are completely different subjects to suburbs. The issue what is the right article for using the indigenous name(please stop using native). As it stands its acceptable for using it in relation to primary suburb even if the areas are different. Sydney, Perth, and Melbourne metropolitan areas all reach across multiple different countries and cultures even though they have commonalities but these names dont and to say otherwise you need exceptional sourcing to show acceptance across every country for the name to be used. Wikipedia's biggest problem is that contributors are still treating Aboriginal Australian as mono-culture when its not, when its written this is the aboriginal word for xxxxx even that is wrong grammatically we should be writing ... the Dharug word for area including this suburb is Gadi. This absolutely consistent with the way we write as an example we would never write the European pronunciation for Ypres is leper.... If cook had crashed on Shoalwater reef Kangaroos may now be Yongas.Gnangarra

• Thanks for your contribution Gnangarra. Is the current usage of using the language name and then explaining in the etymology section not appropriate? E.g. on the Sydney page it has multiple names in different languages. Poketama (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time to absorb all this and give it enough attention now, but thought it worth making a quick note here that the distinction should be made between official dual names of various places and geographical features (and each state and NT have their own policies about and lists of these) and the various levels of informal use and acceptance of various names. Note also (although NOT official), Tourism Australia's new policy, which will probably lead to greater awareness and use of these names for the capital cities. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be embroiled very deeply in politics here, using somewhat absurd points to argue that Indigenous (not native, can we please avoid that work? It rarely used in Australia) names don't count. The arguments seem to sum up to

a) Names from languages without their own alphabet which are then written down into Latin don't count, which would dismiss an enormous chunk of the world's language and is not based in linguistics at all.

b) The names refer to geographic areas where cities are now located, which is playing semantic games, because metropolitan areas are the same as that region for the purpose of governance and statistics. We're not a history wiki, we're concerned with how humans classify these regions today.

c) That the opinion of important Indigenous organisations doesn't count because it doesn't "prove" common use (which even if it doesn't, it does prove official use)

d) A region and a city can't share the same name (which again, is absurd. Luxembourg City is the capital of Luxembourg; Hobart / nipaluna is in the Greater Hobart / nipaluna region). JT_dale^Talk~ 18:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Some of these names are way off. Naarm refers to Port Phillip Bay, which has any number of cities on its shores. Saying that's the name for Melbourne is a stretch. Editors are pushing political agendas, wanting every single Australian place to have an Indigenous name, regardless of how appropriate it is. Spourcing is all over the place and rarely anything that reflects historical fact. Canberra where I live seems to be Ngunnawal country that somehow follows the borders of the ACT and the Canberra name seems to refer to only a small part of the area that is now the city. Canberra the city took that name and ran with it and there is no dispute but for all those cities named after colonial administrators of one sort or another it's a big ask to find either a pre-existing name thart covers the same area or a name that came afterward specifically referring to the city.

For the current inhabitants, who speak English and live in suburbs and have British ancestors I really have to question how much of this effort is political point-scoring. --Pete (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

How is this a political issue? Poketama (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Just read political issue, and you will see that as a group trying to decide on something, that something is a political issue. Any way my opinion is that we have to stick to what is true (ie not give a name for a bay to a city), have it sourced, and give it suitable prominence, so if the name is not familiar to most from that location, it should not be in the lead sentence, but in the infobox or in a paragraph on naming, it would be suitable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Pete's arguments. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 07:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a political question but one very pertinent to our Auatralian culture in how it acts on our past, present, and future. We have to get this right because if we don't we'll have crusaders for one team or another edit-warring all over the shop. See below. --Pete (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

In response to Graeme's thoughts just above and also Subtropical-man's earlier comments, Alternative Names is extremely clear with the way the names should be handled. See the following:

Wikipedia Manual of Style - Lead Section:

significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages. Indeed, alternative names can be used in article text in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called "Gdańsk" can be referred to as "Danzig" in suitable historical contexts.

I think we all agree they should be in the article somewhere, evidently so does Wikipedia.

Based on Wikipedia's own guidelines, there are the following arguments:

- Graeme's (and Subtropical-man's earlier) suggestions that they should not be in the lead sentence is immediately addressed by should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph

- The styling of such is also addressed: The title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses.

- The Indigenous names are obviously historical names that are still in wide-spread use, particularly in Indigenous communities, and that shouldn't really be negated simply because there are more non-Indigenous people or that our ancestors didn't use the Latin alphabet, and as people learn about our cultures, the names are increasingly used in the non-Indigenous community too

- I don't think anyone can really argue that Indigenous names are not significant names in other languages, they obviously are

- Graeme mentions if the name is not familiar to most from that location - The guideline mentions that cities can be referred to by alternate names in suitable historical contexts, I would argue that the locations of the cities in 'suitable historical contexts' (pre-colonial) would in fact be the Indigenous names as the locations were not known by the colonial names at that time, and as for the names being familiar to most, well not just most people from the locations were Indigenous, quite literally everyone was during that historical context so there is no question around whether the people back then used the Indigenous names

The guidelines then go on to state that Relevant foreign language names... are encouraged - this, atleast to me, pre-empts the suggestion that it is just a silly political issue, Wikipedia actively wants the foreign language names to be used in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses. GadigalGuy (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

On your last point: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines Says that "Relevant foreign language names (... that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted." This would seem to be even more pertinent given that these peoples still live in these areas. Poketama (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

GadigalGuy, you too simplify problem. Quoting of Wikipedia Manual of Style is useless in this situation. Even example in Wikipedia Manual of Style is clear, "Gdańsk" can be referred to as "Danzig" because Danzig" is old official name for the city. Both in the infobox and in the first sentence of the article, we can use the previous official names of the city - I repeat - the city, while other names, e.g. geographic, Aboriginal, etc. - are information intended for the etymology or history section. For example, the Aboriginal name "Gabi" refers to certain areas where Sydney is postponed, does not mean that "Gabi" = "Sydney". Sydney is city, "Gabi" is Aboriginal name for area. If, for example, New York City lies in an area that 500 years ago was called "The Great Swamp", it does not mean that in an article about New York you should write: "New York City (formerly The Great Swamp) - city in the United States... (...) ". It's logical. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 04:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, it's Gadi not Gabi. As for the reasoning, the thing I find most confusing with your argument is that you seem to be suggesting that a city is not an area and therefore Indigenous names for the same area's do not apply, yet you also suggest that a city has some boundary where Sydney is postponed, as though they are areas (because if it wasn't an area it wouldn't have a boundary, right?). When I strip back the 'city' argument and try to think about it logically, it's clear there needs to be some definition of what a city is. From what I know, a city is a human settlement or community at it's most simple form, and my ancestors did in fact live in a community with beliefs & values, societal expectations & participations, procedures, and so on (quite a lot of which was documented by the first fleet in their journals) - a human settlement not unlike the Colonial one. Now you might say it's about the establishment date, and I'd argue that just because the Colonisers appeared and gave it a new name doesn't mean there wasn't a community already established there - we know there was, the first fleet knew it too because they documented it. But you might say, 'no a city has a larger population, it's about the number of people' - the thing about that though is that my ancestors lived in a settlement with a larger population than the Colonisers prior to the arrival of the Colonisers, in the exact same location, on the exact same land. In fact, they were still a larger population until Colonisers did unthinkable things and smallpox went wild. So that rules out human settlement/community, and population from your 'city' argument. Must be some other definition - is it the buildings & structures? Because Watkin Tench (a member of the first fleet) described in his journals the Indigenous shelters, and there are some quite famous artworks that also cover that angle, and similar to the population angle, there were still more Indigenous structures here than Colonial ones until they shipped in enough people and supplies from the UK - so that rules out buildings & structures. What's left, land? Well, we both know the land is the same land. Am I missing something, because even the semantics doesn't seem to hold up...? This place is the exact same place, and a rose is a rose by any other name. GadigalGuy (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

a city is a human settlement or community at it's most simple form, and my ancestors did in fact live in a community — and so did the British when they arrived, but was it the same community? Did the British join the existing community of Gadigal people? Or did they form their own community on the same land? I suggest that while the land is the same (whatever you call it), their were two separate communities or "cities" (whatever they were called). The Gadigal community existed originally, the British created their own second community. Some Gadigal people may have joined the British community, and perhaps vice-versa, but I do not think that they could be considered to have merged. Current-day Sydney is not the same community as what existed before the British arrived. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

So should the page for Istanbul not refer to the name Constantinople in the lead? Or to Byzantium? As these are all population centers on the same land with significantly different cultures, ethnic groups, building styles, etc. It's a bit of a Ship of Theseus argument. This is the same, as I think it's fair to say we are referring to Melbourne (or otherwise) as a settlement, and there was a settlement there beforehand on the same land. As GadigalGuy says below though Melbourne and other settlements had substantial integration of Aboriginal peoples immediately upon colonisation. This is clear in the accounts of religious leaders pushing to remove Aboriginal peoples from the city and its 'corrupting' influences.Poketama (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

That's news to me, thanks Mitch! Because to suggest that our communities have not merged is to suggest that my family & I, and our friends are not part of the "Current-day Sydney" community, that we are still in our seperate pre/post-colonial communities. Of course the communities have merged, and talking as though our community is past-tense, hello - still exist! Without taking it personally, you only have to look at the history of Irish-Indigenous relations across the entire country to see an intentional (and consensual) merging of pre/post-colonial communities. It's not all assimilation and cultural destruction (surprisingly). GadigalGuy (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, first a clarification of my post - when I said "there were two separate communities" I meant that literally as "there were [past tense, ie at that time] two separate communities" - without stating anything about the state of affairs now. Likewise "The Gadigal community existed originally" - which it did, independently of whether it exists now. I can see that you might interpret it differently to the literal meaning of the words, but my intent was to state the situation at that time, independently of what it is now. My post did not state, nor was it intended to imply, whether or not the Gadigal community currently exists.

to suggest our communities have not merged is to suggest that my family & I, and our friends are not part of the "Current-day Sydney" community — That is not the case. You can be part of two different communities simultaneously. I can be a member of two different clubs/communities without those two clubs/communities having to merge.

Of course the communities have merged — Do you consider yourself/family/friends to be part of the "Gadigal community" (for want of a better term)? Do you consider all of the non-Aboriginal people in Sydney to be part of the Gadigal community? Do they? Would it be OK if I (a "white" person with no claim to Aboriginality) moved to Sydney (or was born and raised in Sydney) and called myself a Gadigal person? If the answer is "yes" to the first question, but "no" to any of the others, then you are a member of a community that others are not, which implies that the two communities ("Gadigal" and "Sydney residents") have not merged, although they may overlap (eg you and your family may be in both). That's not a problem - communities can co-exist, and overlap, without having to merge and become one. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The point of my earlier post (of 10:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)) was that it's plausible for Gadi and Sydney to be two different communities/cities (not physical "places") that both currently exist in the same physical place. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I get what you're saying but I think we are starting to get mixed up with identities and communities. We are part of the 'Gadigal community' because it is part of our identity, not because we live in a seperate co-existing 'Gadigal community' that still has it's own rules, systems & governments, so those example questions don't really fit with this. Obviously we still have our own customs and things that are unique to us, and your mob have your own too, so our identities have not merged but our communities have, we use the same shops, schools, hospitals & roads, mostly talk the same language with one another, we use the same tax systems & government services. Do white people have their own city exclusive to us? Do the variety of cultures in Sydney live in their own city or are we all living in the same city which functions because of the contributions each culture brings to it? People love to talk about how Australia is the most multi-cultural community, promoting Indigenous things as part of some great Australian culture for tourism and how "we are one", so are we or aren't we? We can't be united/merged only when it's convenient, and segregated when it's not. GadigalGuy (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

GadigalGuy, you are too emotional about the topic. No one censors here different cultures in Australia. This discussion is only about inserting aboriginal names into the first sentence or infobox in article about Australian cities. Nothing more. Nobody here wants to remove Aboriginal names or informations about Aboriginal people from the article. Note also that apart from a few technical problems, not all Australian cities have the same Aboriginal name situation as Sydney. In other australian cities, names are more problematic (e.g. Perth, where there are several definitions of an aboriginal name) and therefore no top-down consent should be made for all Australian cities. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 06:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, I came here from this notification, and I'm quite confused about what the issue here is. If there is an indigenous name for the city in use amoung the indigenous people and that can be backed up with reliable sources then the name should be placed in parenthesis next to the primary name as per the alternative names policy. The except is if there are too many names to practically place in the lead, in which case there should be an entomology section in the article. Note that it doesn't matter what the name was used for in the past: it's the common use today that matters. If it can be shown that the name is in common use in an indigenous language then it should be added. --Spekkios (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for your interesting contribution to the debate, I'm surprised no one had mentioned it yet.

  The convention that is being debated here is in widespread usage on NZ Wikipedia articles, which provides a good comparison given Australia's close ties with NZ.

  As has been shown in the New Zealand case, standards have been developed to fit the local context that are independent of the broader English Wikipedia.

  See:

  New Zealand

  Wellington

  Whakaari / White Island

  Auckland

  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Convention for dual and alternative names

  Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand)

  Poketama (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  • There are two types of areas: New World and Old World. New World in almost every case, they are conquered territories, formerly and now inhabited by indigenous (aboriginal) peoples. You show one example: New Zealand. I can give 30 examples of articles about countries (in the New World), in which cities do not have an indigenous name in the first sentence or the infobox. I would also like to point out that the Indians (living in both Americas) in the world are much more popular than the Aboriginal Australians. Outside of Australia, no one knows a even single Aboriginal tribe, while everyone in the world has heard of many Indian tribes like Apache, Cheyenne, Sioux, Comanche, Maya peoples, Aztecs etc. So, your New Zealand example is very weak. Why should we follow the example of one country (New Zealand) when several dozen other countries of the New World (including much more famous tribes) do not use indigenous names in first sentence or infobox? Besides, as I mentioned earlier: an indigenous name can be used if it refers to a city or even a historical settlement, and not the name of a whole geographical or/and historical region. Please see an example of the city of Gdańsk / Danzig in Wikipedia:Manual of Style - Danzig was official name of the city. The area where the city of Gdańsk / former Danzig is Polish "pl:Kaszuby" (historical region). Article of Gdańsk will never show name of "Kaszuby" as native name for city because this is name for whole historical region, not a city or even historical settlement. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

    while you continue to use racist language why would anyone acknowledge you opinion Gnangarra 13:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

    it's a simple personal attack and slander. There is no racism here. The use of a worldwide standard word has nothing to do with racism. I reverted it. User:Poketama clearly prefers trolling because restore it. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

    I'm not trying to troll you, I just don't think it was appropriate to remove this users comments. They arn't attacking you personally.

    They are saying you are using racist language, which is true. The use of 'aborigine' is widely considered offensive in modern mainland Australia and you won't hear it very often. This debate isn't about that, but it affects how the community that you are trying to negotiate with perceives your cultural capacity to make your arguments. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/08/why-saying-aborigine-isnt-ok-8-facts-about-indigenous-people-in-australia/ Poketama (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

    Comparing the Aztec and Mayan empires to Indigenous Australian groups is apples and oranges. They're not at all alike. As for Native American tribes - the prominence and privileged position of American media in all forms of English language culture is why you've heard of the Cheyenne or Sioux. Australia is a net cultural importer, not exporter. This does not make our culture invalid or the Indigenous people of Australia less important or reduce their right to be respectfully represented on Wikipedia.

    New Zealand, as our close geographical neighbour, who share a very similar system of government and a related culture, is a very appropriate comparison to look towards in policy decisions. JT_dale^Talk~ 09:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

    Firstly, your argument seems to be that many other countries have failed to include this information in their articles. If we based our contributions off of this, there would barely be a Wikipedia. Someone has to start adding information and sections. New Zealand has done a good job, and has a much closer cultural context to Australia than the US does on Indigenous issues. In Australia, Indigenous issues are frequently talked about and an Acknowledgement of Country is given at most major events. The USA doesn't give it's Indigenous population nearly as much notice. Therefore, it's hardly a surprise that US editors have not prioritised adding that information.

    However, actually some US cities do include Indigenous names in their infobox.

    Manhattan Chicago

    Secondly, so we come back to, if you say 'an indigenous name can be used if it refers to a city' what sort of citation do you consider quality enough to accept? Poketama (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

    Manhattan, Chicago they don't have an Indian name in the intro or infobox. Secondly, I would like to remind you that the discussion concerns all Australian cities, giving one or two examples is not enough. There are many cities whose correct use of the Aboriginal name is very debatable. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

    1. They do have the Native American names in the infobox, underneath the flags.
    2. I feel like we're pretty much on the same page here at this point and am happy for that. It seems to me that you're happy to have those names included as alternate names, as long as it is properly cited and that the citation shows that the alternative names refer to the city and not just to a region. So can you please answer the important question: what sort of citation do you consider quality enough to accept?

    Poketama (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

    The problem also lies in the second issue. Cities in Australia have a complicated definition. There are LGAs, often called - for example - City of Perth etc. And there are statistical division definied by Australian Bureau of Statistics, for example: Perth. The word of Perth is an ambiguous word, there are sources that describe them as a City of Perth, region, statistical unit definied by Australian Bureau of Statistics, Perth (suburb), Greater Perth, Perth metropolitan region. So, even if exist source who wrote "Perth (Boorloo)" it is not known what version Perth is written about. In addition, there are sources using this Aboriginal name for City of Perth. This quote says a lot: "There is no equivalent Noongar terminology for the Perth metropolitan area; it is sited primarily on Whadjuk country, which extends approximately[note 1] north to Two Rocks, south to Mandurah, and east as far as York.[17][18][19] Boorloo (also transcribed as Boorlo or Burrell) referred to Point Fraser[20][21] in East Perth, and means "big swamp",[21] which describes the whole chain of lakes where the CBD and Northbridge are sited.[22] As is the case with Perth, depending on the context Boorloo can denote[citation needed][improper synthesis?] the central business district,[23][24] the local government area,[25] or the capital city in general". So, we have a purely technical problem here, we cannot use the Aboriginal name in the first sentence and infobox of main article of Perth because the Aboriginal name refers to other/different types of Perth. This is just one example, there are probably several dozen such debatable matters. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

    Yeah that is something to have a look at. So what sources are suitable for use as citations for place names? Poketama (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

    So, even if exist source who wrote "Perth (Boorloo)" it is not known what version Perth is written about. — The references that I used for Boorloo in Perth#Etymology are fairly clear as to which meaning of "Perth" they are intending - that's why I kept those particular ones. See my post when I started Talk:Perth#Proposed_rewrite_of_Etymology,_Boorloo_paragraph. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Indigenous names: a proposal

This is an important topic and if we screw this up we are going to offend sll sorts of people. It is clear that some Australian towns and cities do have solid alternative place names because the original residents gave names to a headland, a lake, a bend in the river or whatever before European people came along and built a town there. Others, not so much and if Naarm is the old name for Port Phillip Bay then I am not at all confident about how that relates to just one city on the shores of a large body of water. Other city names seem even more confected.

How about we actually do some good research and provide a service to our readers by finding sources that are not blogs or city council webpages and giving an "Indigenous name" subsection as part of the history section for each town or city? There were Indigenous folk occupying the land before the Europeans and I think we can reasonably identify who they were and what language they spoke. They didn't have towns and cities and shire councils and stuff, but they did have names for significant bits of land and I imagine that we we can find actual scholars who recorded these and what they were. I'm not saying that Wikipedia is going to decide what the Indigenous names are (if they exist at all) but instead of providing a name and leaving it at that let's do the thing proper and give our readers the facts. If the name is fair dinkum, it will come out. If the name is gammon, likewise.

(ETA) As a corollary, I suggest that if an article does not have an "Indigenous name" subsection with good sourcing, then we don't inclusde an alternative name in the lede or infobox. Those wanting to include such a name can go and do some research, and those wanting to remove one, likewise. Let's be as honest and transparent and fair as we can. --Pete (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

A whole section may be excessive in many cases. Example - Rottnest Island includes one sentence "the traditional Noongar name for the island is Wadjemup, which means "place across the water where the spirits are". It's certainly worth including, but I don't think it warrants a whole section, and doubt that we need, or are likely to get, much more than this. There's a Pre-European history section, but that's about more than just the name. (Perth § Etymology at least includes more than one sentence on Boorloo.) Mitch Ames (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

My thinking is that if we get some solid sources into our articles, then we can forestall years of dispute. People can look up the source, say, "Well, okay then" and we won't be throwing bricks at each other. Maybe a sentence, but something that holds a bit of weight and not some reference to a sports club website or whatever. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your well-thought out proposal but disagree with the premise. I have been adding slowly historical names into history and etymology sections which cover things pretty well. The dispute isn't about historical names but the acceptance that there are modern Aboriginal language placenames in use, especially for cities, and that they deserve prominence in the lead and infobox (as is established practice for other countries alternate placenames and Indigenous placenames). Therefore, if the dispute is around sourcing this information I would ask what is a sufficient standard of citation to satisfy inclusion in the lead? Poketama (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I also appreciate your approach here Pete, it would be nice to get to a point where people don't throw bricks (as you mention) over what is really a small but important issue (who knew a few extra letters would be so controversial), although considering how much I smile & nod at the things people say & general experiences in everyday life I think we've got an uphill battle... a couple of things I would throw in for consideration... Putting the names in a history section feels off, the names are still in use today and obviously we still exist, and given the colonial context of trying to relegate Indigenous culture to history could be a bit on the nose, so it's not really history if that makes sense. I get where you're going with it though and obviously that wouldn't be your intention. I personally just want the names to have recognition somewhere in the relevant articles. If they were in a different section I'd worry that they could be lost in the wall of text unless there is a prominent placing of that section for example, but at least they would be mentioned. But as Mitch talks about, in a lot of cases there isn't much of a story to tell other than 'xyz is the name the xyz-gal people use for colonial location within Sydney (for example)' which could be less clunky just as the 'Colonial name (xyz-gal: xyz)' parenthesis styling in the first sentence, and at least then the names don't get lost in the wall of text and a new section wouldn't look out of place.

The other thing I think is worth a mention, how should we handle cases where there are no colonial records and only oral or recent recordings of the names? Because obviously most Indigenous culture is passed down orally. I can tell you what my grandparents called things and other relatives still call certain objects or places but sometimes these things aren't going to have a proper academic/historical record, and that becomes a huge challenge because that knowledge should be somewhere so it doesn't inevitably get lost to time, and an easily accessible encyclopaedia like this seems appropriate to me if there are articles where the usage fits (eg. place names on place articles) because otherwise it becomes basically impossible to share that knowledge - and obviously oral history is hard to cite.GadigalGuy (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Indigenous sources should be given prominence, and should be considered self evidently authoritative when it comes to indigenous language names, IMO. If a land council or similar group can be cited, great (and not dismissed as a 'blog'). Onus of proof should be on those Wikipedians asserting that Aboriginal people aren't to be considered authorities on their own traditional languages. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 14:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Indigenous sources ... should be considered self evidently authoritative ... — Indigenous sources need to meet WP:RS criteria, as do any other sources. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, some Indigenous sources are likely to be more authoritative, and thus given more weight, but it's not a guarantee. If a source is written by an Australian English-speaking person, that does not automatically make them an authority on Australian English names. The same applies equally to Indigenous sources. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

oops I'm kind of agreeing with Mitch, Indigenous names are going to have to have sourcing for them to be use here. Placenames will be in in documents at Land Councils and Indigenous corporations, local, state and federal government agencies, or other research documentation rely on them to take the oral source to a written source because we can reasonably assume that such information has had at least some cultural verification before publication. If we go down the intangible knowledge route for sourcing then we walk a fine line with WP:OR we could potentially reference those sources but would have to be clear that is from oral traditional knowledge, anecdotal, or colloquial usage. Gnangarra 01:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

That should often be doable. Some art galleries, including the National Gallery of Australia, are now routinely using an Indigenous name of the location in Australia the artist is from as well as the anglo name in labels, for instance, so resources to do this are available. Australia Post accepts Indigenous place names in addresses, and recommends sourcing them by "getting in touch with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Councils or Cultural Centres in your locality. You can also check AIATIS map which shows the general locations of larger groups of people". Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, there are sources available everywhere, and yet when it's a major cultural institution like the Australian Museum featuring a post FROM Gadigal people explaining what the name of the city is, still we have anon/newly registered accounts trying to remove the links. This is what I mean as assuming indigenous sources are authoritative, at least when it comes to restoring contentious changes, because it's the best way to deal with this kind of, IMO, bad faith editing. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 00:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Australia Post accepts Indigenous place names in addresses — More accurately Australia Post accepts Indigenous place names in the "address zone", but recommends placing them "above the street address" - i.e they are not part of the address used for delivery. Australia Post suggests getting them from [someone other than Australia Post] - in short, Australia Post is not a reliable source for such names. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that almost no level of sourcing is satisfying these people. Sources from land councils, local government, state government, and aboriginal organisations are being removed as not proving 'popular usage'. The Tasmanian Aboriginal Council has provided place names for some locations in Tasmania. But apparently even that has not been enough source for editors who have persisted in removing Indigenous place names from articles in Tasmania. JT_dale^Talk~ 09:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that in some places, the only source who care enough to provide any information is going to be local government or the local land council / aboriginal organisation. If we set the barrier as major media sources or academia for any other information like this, half the regional places in Australia would be empty articles. JT_dale^Talk~ 09:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

References

If we cannot find acceptable sourcing as per Wikipedia, then what level of fervour is enough to overcome the deficiency? My concern is that this is turning political and people are singing the songs of their tribes, whether conservative Anglo-Saxon where only the names of the colonists are acceptable, or politically correct where every Australian town and city must be supplied with an Indigenous placename. Those of Indigenous ancestry right now are not their ancestors of 200 years ago. They are (overwhelmingly) people of British ancestry, speaking English, living suburban lives - going by the census data, anyway - and just how much do they understand or possess pre-colonial cultural knowledge?

If we accept whatever present-day Indigenous organisations come up with as gospel that cannot be contradicted then just where is our sourcing policy? We are engraving in Wikistone something that may be totally bogus.

Then again, some names are genuine, have excellent sourcing, and meet all wikicriteria for inclusion.

We have to get this right. --Pete (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander placenames - moving forward

Well it's been over a week since I've asked (this time) for Subtropical-man to engage on the point of 'what sources are good enough'. At this point I think work on style can be moved over in a more structured manner to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Conventions/Indigenous draft. I think that some of the arguments discussed here are not sound, and others have merit and should be looked into. Ultimately, I think there has been enough discussion to move forward in a productive way.

Discredited arguments:

• These names did not exist because they were not written in the Latin alphabet;
• These names can't be used if they originate from after colonisation, or their current usage is a post-colonial usage;
• Well-sourced names are not important enough for the lead or userbox;
• We can't use these names in the lead because other countries do not do it;
• That modern cited usage in the wider Aboriginal community of a place-name is not sufficient for inclusion;
• That the inclusion of placenames is solely an ideological and political push;
• That cities and regions cannot have the same name, or that a name cannot be used for two distinct entities;
• New Zealand is not an appropriate comparison for style.

Arguments to further explore:

• That the geographic or historical name for a region or Indigenous settlement is not the same as the name for the metropolitan area. I think GadigalGuy has made a good case that this would be the same name, but it is obviously controversial;
• What level of sourcing is required to show that a name is in use by modern communities and what area of land it applies to. For example, a recurring argument is that the names of cities are unclear because 'Perth' can mean the CBD or the greater Perth metropolitan area.
• How to include oral history and knowledge within Australian articles;
• Whether the name needs to be in modern usage or if historical names are sufficient for inclusion.

For now, I think there has been sufficient argument to show that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander placenames should be included in the lead and infobox, if they are cited appropriately. As such I will be adding back the name for Brisbane which I agreed to leave until after this argument. It is a tenant of Wikipedia that one should look to improve, rather than delete contributions. As Gnangarra says, there will be disputes about placenames and if they are correct, however an editor can fix this by adding the correct placename, or by noting that they are disputed, or by including multiple placenames for different language groups. However, I believe it is inappropriate and counterproductive to entirely remove placenames from Wikipedia. When in Doubt Don't Delete. Poketama (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: most of the above "Discredited arguments" are manipulations! Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This is only your opinion. You are a party to the case, so you have no right to decide anything here or to make changes to the articles because there is no consensus here. Your comparison above is also not entirely true, can see a manipulation or misunderstanding of what the author wanted to convey. In most of the your "Discredited arguments" is totally manipulation, no one here has made such an argument. It's about validity/importance. The argument was: if something existed only in speech, and a written form of name was only developed in the about 20th century, it is not very important to include information about it in the first sentence of the article. In this situations, the information in the Etymology section would suffice, where there is a place to represent the spoken name and the process of writing it in the Latin alphabet. Also, you listed "Discredited arguments" for against use the Aboriginal names in first sentence, but you do not listed "Discredited arguments" for this idea. This is an extreme lack of neutrality. Also, argument of "New Zealand" was not discredited to oppose for idea just as it was not enacted for support for idea. The fact that New Zealand is 2,000 km from Australia and is closer (including culturally closer) than America is a kindergarten argument. This does not mean that we cannot use standards from other articles of other countries. Argument of "New Zealand" was discredited for opponents, but not for supporters?!?! How can you even write such nonsense? Next case, to your text: "Well it's been over a week since I've asked (this time) for Subtropical-man to engage on the point of 'what sources are good enough" - I answered you before. The problem is not the sources themselves, but the technical problem. Perth is a real example. If there are sources using the the same Aboriginal name for different things: Perth metropolitan area, City of Perth, Perth CBD, then you cannot select only those sources that write about Perth metropolitan area and use them only in the selected article because these are in line with your views/opinions. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Following the user Poketama' method, I worked out some general points:
• Discredited arguments (created by supporters):

• • "Must to use aboriginal name because this is historical name" - no, is not. This is Aboriginal historical name for geographical regions like a plateau or an area from the right side of a river to a hill etc etc. These are not historical names for settlements or cities. The fact that some area coincides with today's city is not enough for an argument. Therefore, this argument is totally discredited.
  • "New Zealand used the Aboriginal names, namely Australia must to uses Aboriginal names" - New Zealand this is just one country that has a mania for honoring the Māori people. There are several dozen New World' countries where Aboriginal peoples (like Native Americans etc) lived and the aboriginal names are not used in the first sentence of the article. Therefore, this argument of New Zealand is totally discredited.
  • "There are some sources for uses Aboriginal name propably to today cities" - ff there are sources using the the same Aboriginal name for different things: for example Perth metropolitan area, City of Perth, Perth CBD, then you cannot select only those sources that write about Perth metropolitan area and use them only in the selected article because these are in line with your views/opinions. So, this argument is totally discredited.

• • Summary: All arguments of the supporters of entering the Aboriginal name in the first sentence of the article have been discredited! Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I apologise for using the term discredited that may have been a bit inflammatory. I don't believe I have misrepresented the arguments, although I may have abbreviated them in haste in a way that distorts your intention without meaning to. It's rather troubling that I keep trying to assume good faith from you and you do things like post on my talk page that I will be banned for vandalism. I'd wish you would show the same good faith in seeking a resolution to the argument.

I started this section in an attempt to move forward with the discussion. The threads of arguments that have been discussed have come to a dead end and I'm unsure of how to proceed, especially given that the last response to this page was a week ago. Dispute resolution may be the best option at this point? I know you want a consensus, so how can we achieve this? Poketama (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel like this is going around in circles, as Poketama has pointed out the discussion has basically come to a stand-still with one user opposing and evidently not compromising on their position at all while others have discussed styling and placement options, and a general agreement from the rest that the names should be in the articles, with no overwhelming opposition to the parenthesis styling as per the Wikipedia guidelines - in fact, some people have made it clear that is already employed over in the New Zealand articles, and even support it without including the New Zealand example. To me, that sounds like a consensus has already been reached. I actually didn't know about the New Zealand styling, but it clearly works. I don't know that we can get to much more of a consensus than it already is at, at this point, we are now starting to go in circles, and as per when to wrap it up, when further contributions are unlikely to be helpful, it's probably time.

Subtropical-man, you continue to say things like "These are not historical names for settlements", and I've explained multiple times they are - my ancestors lived in structured societies, not random 'plateaus' or 'swamps' as you've so kindly stated on multiple occasions.

I also find it bizarre to downplay the significance of the Australia-New Zealand similarity as though it is a 'kindergarten argument'. Yes we are different countries, however our countries are barely different culturally - it's not a 'close' connection, it's almost identical. It isn't unreasonable for us to take their lead on something like this. Heck outside of Wikipedia, New Zealand is literally in the Australian Constitution as a state, and citizens share near identical rights in both countries - it's not an apples to oranges comparison, unlike the USA example on the other side of the planet.

The whole idea of Wikipedia is to share knowledge, and if people are qualified to do so, with an understanding of things like Indigenous place names, then that knowledge ought to be shared. Wikipedia wants that information, it doesn't want people to revert things that don't actually make an article worse - and I fail to see how adding Indigenous names makes an article worse, it only improves understanding that there are other names used for the same locations.GadigalGuy (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

GadigalGuy, you write about yourself and your ancestors and by the username (GadigalGuy), we can also see that you are the party to the case. I understand that you, as an Aboriginal person, want to use such a name in Australian articles. But this is agitation on your behalf, nothing more. Wikipedia is not a place for such agitation. Today Aborigines and tomorrow Chechens are agitating for independence in the Wikipedia? You have expressed your opinion, not everyone agrees with this. You also forgot an important point: a new idea must meet the requirements Wikipedia:Core content policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (incuding WP:SYNTHESIS) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia:Core content policies "are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus". Considering Perth case, some of these rules have been broken, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability (the sources have been questioned because the name refers to different things) and Wikipedia:No original research]] incuding WP:SYNTHESIS (synthesis - an attempt to explain the problem based on various sources). Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

If I understand your argument, you are saying GadigalGuy should not be involved in deciding policies on the inclusion of Aboriginal content because they are Aboriginal and therefor have a vested interest in the subject. However, this excludes a huge amount of the people who actually do have knowledge of the subject and somewhat arbitrarily assumes that someone of a certain ethnic group cannot edit within Wikipedia's guidelines. Should Polish people not be allowed to write articles on villages in Poland or Polish history for fear they will be biased? Poketama (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

yes, in matters of discussion regarding the history of Poland, Poles may have their own opinion, but they should not have a final opinion because there is a great probability that they will act without sufficient neutrality in their case. This applies to Poles, Aborigines and any other person who agitates on his own cause. The decisive opinion should be given by a neutral party, unrelated to a given place and population group, who sees problems from a third perspective. Also, please read: Wikipedia:Third opinion. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Subtropical-man, I'm finding it hard to assume good faith now with your continued use of 'Aborigines', this time about myself. That is not appropriate, it has been pointed out to you multiple times that it is offensive and racist terminology which leads me to believe you are doing it intentionally to cause offence and be disruptive/'agitating'. That's not cool. Please do better.GadigalGuy (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that my native language is Polish. I have English at the intermediate level. I don't have time or desire to learn rare words, so I use a standard and neutral word from the dictionary. In any dictionary, 'Aborigines' is a normal word. But ok, how do I write about Australian Aborigines in a single person? Aboriginal person? Other? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Aboriginal person. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/aborigine Poketama (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

How would you suggest finding a third party? Should we open the subject to 3O dispute resolution? So far there have been Australian editors, and Aboriginal editors, and you - a Polish editor. There has been a third party, an editor from New Zealand, who disagreed with you. But you say they are wrong. So what is there to do?

I'd also note that that GadigalGuy is an Aboriginal person, in the same way that you are a European person. These are very big categories. So for the example of Polish history, we would be saying that all Europeans would be unable to settle disputes on Polish matters. This seems like a pretty big bar to clear.

Poketama (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Poketama, First: I know there is assume goodwill, but considering that almost all of your examples were manipulated, I felt you did so on purpose, based on your extreme lack of a neutral point of view. Second: this is why (+ your changes in article) I entered the standard {test4} in your talk page + gave a justification [3]. Creating a new section and show manipulating arguments entered by another users is sure to be recognized as destructive activities. If you say it was unintentional manipulation ok, I accept the apology.

  You wrote: "I started this section in an attempt to move forward with the discussion. The threads of arguments that have been discussed have come to a dead end and I'm unsure of how to proceed" - note you don't need to any proceed. You are with a lot of users here who have written their opinion, nothing more. You wrote: "especially given that the last response to this page was a week ago" - You are a beginner user with very little experience in the Wikipedia (total edits: 184), so many things you don't know yet. Discussions on simple, non-controversial topics can end quickly but complicated topics with a lot of discussion threads may be discussed for several months, and even after a several months there may not be a pure consensus. I understand that you support the idea of inserting an Aboriginal name in the first sentence of each article about a Australian city and another place, and you want approval quickly, but with this complexity of the problem, I don't see any possibility of a quick consensus. ...and even there's a possibilty that consensus will never be reached. Moreover, apart from consensus, a new idea must meet the requirements Wikipedia:Core content policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (incuding WP:SYNTHESIS) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia:Core content policies "are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus". Considering Perth case, some of these rules have been broken, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability (the sources have been questioned because the name refers to different things) and Wikipedia:No original research]] incuding WP:SYNTHESIS (synthesis - an attempt to explain the problem based on various sources). Now, the only way out is to wait for the further development of the discussion, and new arguments from other people who will want to express themselves in the coming weeks. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Ok walk through your arguments for me please for not including the name Meeanjin in the lead of the Brisbane page.

  First I would say, it's in the manual of style.

  "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted."

  You would say, well this does not apply to the modern day city of Brisbane it applies to a region. But the source shows that it does apply to the modern CIty.

  You may argue that a name used historically to refer to a region would not apply to the city, and I've said OK that is still up for debate, but if I give you a source that says the city is named as such by contemporary communities where is the dispute?

  So it becomes, 'we do not know if the source refers to the Brisbane CBD or Greater Brisbane'. If then, you can find a source that specifically says one way or another is this good enough?

  You may say, well this name is not of importance because it was developed recently - but that is not what the MOS says in the quote above.

  So why is there reason for not including these names if it is well cited? Poketama (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Please read article of Turrbal, article aobut Aboriginal Australian people from the region of present-day Brisbane. Even there writes outright that the name "Mianjin/Meanjin" refers to the center rather than the whole Brisbane metropolitan area... and are sources there. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  That is a dead source, the current website does not say this. But this is not the point.

  You have said several times things like 'we do not know if the source refers to the Brisbane CBD or Greater Brisbane'. If then, you can find a source that specifically says one way or another is this good enough? Poketama (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  no, I already wrote about it. I am quoting: "If there are sources using the the same Aboriginal name for different things: Perth metropolitan area, City of Perth, Perth CBD, then you cannot select only those sources that write about Perth metropolitan area and use them only in the selected article because these are in line with your views/opinions". Even if you specify the source that the name refers to the metropolitan area, the source will be questioned as there are sources using that name for other things. Therefore, here the case is exactly the same as with Perth. The sources for the metropolitan area were questioned, a standard template was used for the disputed sources, and the Aboriginal name was transferred to the Etymology section + explanation. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  That is understandable that there will be disputes and they can be handled as they come up. However, you have created an impossible burden of truth with the conclusion that these names should be moved to the etymology section - a conclusion that jumps ahead without explaining why that is appropriate.

  How am I to provide a source that says Sydney is name for the city, when there are sources that also say well Sydney refers to the metropolitan region, and the council, and the CBD? All of these things can be true, or some sources may be unreliable. But if the source is unreliable show it is unreliable. Poketama (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  not unreliable, but disputed. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Poketama's position that "For now, I think there has been sufficient argument to show that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander placenames should be included in the lead and infobox, if they are cited appropriately" seems entirely appropriate to me based on the discussion above.

  The arguments against doing so push an inappropriate Anglo/European bias onto these articles. We should be endeavoring to remove systemic bias, rather than embedding it by removing important information. (WP:BIAS) Where these names can be appropriately cited, it is entirely suitable that they are included in the opening sentence. The Logical Positivist (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Instead of useless arguing, where are the reliable sources with these names? We could accept a government web site, a newspaper or journal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it is easy to find reliable and accurate sources, but as I have said above - what is there to do when you can also pull sources that say something else? Not that it is contradictory that some sources may say that for example Naarm may refer to Port Phillip and also the City of Melbourne - but this has led to some people saying only one or the other is true - or neither is. How do you move forward when good sources are provided and they are knocked back? Poketama (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• you keep referring to sources about Perth, Perth Metropolitan area, Perth CBD, yet the sources being used are not reliable sorry FIFA isnt the one to decided what is the appropriate Nyungar name, and a Balardong Nyungar isnt the right person to speak as to what is a Whadjuk nyungar name we'll ignore that the person is neither a historian nor a linguist but rather a reporter giving an own opinion. The issue is always about the quality of sources. In WA we have museum called Boola Bardip which has been said to mean many stories, but the reality is the it actually means many lies/tales. As Wikipedian our aim is to provide quality sources not just random sources that say what we want. There is a great desire to use Indigenous names we must take care to not perpetuate false usages or worse do original research. It is better to be without a name when we dont have strong long term acceptable reliable sourcing. Gnangarra 12:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think that Perth is a different case from a lot of other cities that have been much easier to source and have a longer history of using the Indigenous name. I would agree with you that if there's significant dispute within Aboriginal communities about the names, then those viewpoints should be discussed in the etymology section. But I really don't know the situation and background of the issue. Poketama (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  sources about Perth ... FIFA isnt the one to decided — FIFA is not currently used as a reference for Perth/Boorloo. Nor, so far as I can tell, is any reporter giving an opinion. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  the source Tourism Australia states We understand the name doesn’t always incorporate the whole geographical footprint of the location, it may be only a small central location and there are other names that relate to other parts of the location. yet again the are being synthesised to say what you want them to be not what they are. The weather map gives no indication as to area, Perth relates to one weather station specifically located Mt Lawley, but previously located in Perth on Hill street. The name relates only to Perth (suburb) Gnangarra 03:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Gnangarra would a suitable solution be what has been used on the Sydney page for a while, which is to have it say that the name only refers to a specific area?

  Eg. Sydney (/ˈsɪdni/ SID-nee; Dharug: Gadi; Greater Sydney, Dharug: Eora) is the capital city of the state of New South Wales, and the most populous city in Australia and Oceania Poketama (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  For a place like Sydney, the name should not be in the lead sentence, as it is not the first thing that someone should know about Sydney. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with user:Graeme Bartlett. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• By the way, not only Perth has huge problems with the Aboriginal name. Big problem is also in Aboriginal name of Brisbane, see: Talk:Brisbane#Meanjin (and other spellings). Problem in Sydney name, there are two names: Dharug: Gadi;] Greater Sydney, Dharug: Eora. Two aboriginal names in first sentence of the most important (in the World) Australian city. Similar problems will be in dozens of articles. This is crazy. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  • the simple issue is that they are trying to make the sources fit their own concepts where no reliable sourcing exists because the equivalent isnt Boorooloo the nearest true comparison is Whadjuk boodjar for which many reliable source exists, such a comparison isnt place to place but rather place to kins country. Gnangarra 06:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Gnangarra Would you be able to add the information for 'Whadjuk boodjar' to the Perth article? I think that would be quite helpful. Poketama (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

    Perth lead paragraph already says "Perth is located on the traditional lands of the Whadjuk Noongar people" and Perth#Etymology says that Perth "is sited primarily on Whadjuk country, which extends approximately [to Two Rocks, Mandurah, York]. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

    User:Poketama, these informations there are in article of Perth, in at least two places, what else do you want? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Graeme Bartlett This is not the case as has been said several times before it is in the MOS that these names be included. See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines Poketama (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Gnangarra: Tourism Australia and Channel 10 (cited in Perth article) explicitly say they are using the Aboriginal names for "capital cities". The Perth article says "the capital city in general". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  you are trying to make the sources say more than they do TA says understand the name doesn’t always incorporate the whole geographical footprint of the location, it may be only a small central location and there are other names that relate to other parts of the location and the weather map refers to one weather station. Neither source is authorative on the subject of Nyunagr naming for the Metropolitan area nor do they actually attempt to so. Gnangarra 08:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Perth#Etymology says "... Boorloo is also used to denote ... the capital city in general". Both references, Tourism Australia and Channel 10, unambiguously use Boorloo to denote Perth; both references explicitly say they are using Aboriginal/traditional names of "capital cities". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  the quality of the sources do not meet the threshold for being authoritive reliable sources, the TA states doubt over the usage. The weather map isnt a reliable source. Provide better sources of the same standard you demanded from other editors Gnangarra 11:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  add more poor sources like FIFA doesnt address the issue of using reliable sources. Gnangarra 12:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps all of these sources (including Curtin Uni, PerthNow, SBS) are wrong. Should the article say "Boorloo is also used INCORRECTLY to denote the capital city"? Is there are reference we can cite to say that all the other references are wrong? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  not one of those source are better but I get your WP:POINT mitch is always right. 13:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC) Gnangarra 13:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  I give up trying with this yet again congratulations YOU WIN!Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• I noticed this in an old discussion. The discussion of forcibly introducing an Aboriginal name into the first article is a normal circus!! There are 100 doubts, discussions, definition problems, spelling problems (different aboriginal names for the same), source problems, technical problem and 100 more problems with aboriginal names. There is a consensus that this information could be enter in the main article, Etymology and / or History sections but there is a stubborn group of a handful of Australians who are eager to put this information in the first sentence of articles by any means necessary. Understand this: you want to include controversial and questionable content in the first sentence of articles. It's typical destructive activities. Your mania of introducing controversial names into the first sentence of important articles at all costs is unacceptable. You cannot understand that if there is so much controversy and problems, there is no place for this information in the first sentence of this article. The first sentence is too important to include controversial content. Please stop destructive ideas and changes and agree to a compromise - enter Aboriginal names to Etymology and / or History sections. The information in the section will allow you to include alternative names (as there are several Aboriginal names for the same place), and you can also use different sources for names that describe different things. This compromise solves the problem. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  What this discussion indicates to me is that there needs to be a nuanced approach taken. Where there is a clear Aboriginal name for a location or place that can be cited appropriately, then it makes perfect sense to include it in the first sentence as an alternative name. In the case of cities, where names don't extend across a metropolitan area and instead several names apply to different locations within a city's boundaries, then it makes sense to discuss that further down in the article. The problem seems to stem from trying to force a single rule across all Australian cities/places, without recognising that there are hundreds of different Aboriginal nations, languages and communities across Australia, and so different circumstances will apply in different locations. I would be concerned about automatically relegating Aboriginal names to Etymology/History sections where they are clear alternative names for locations in use as it promulgates an idea that these names are historical rather than in continuous use. The Logical Positivist (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Etymology is the study of words (not places/cities). It seems incongruent to describe (in the Etymology section, often the first top-level section) the etymology of a word that is not used or mentioned in the lead section of an article. If a word is important enough to describe its etymology, it's probably important enough to include in the lead section. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  that's not entirely true. If you cannot use a name in lede because there is controversy or a lot of names, you can enter this information in a separate section. Lede does not need to summarize all sections of the article. For exapmle: section of Sport may contain information about a major sports club and major sports events, but most articles do not include sports information from this selction in lede. So it's not a problem that there is no information in lede and this information is in a separate section. I think a one or two sentence about Aboriginal name in the Etymology section is a good solution. If such a section does not exist then the History section can be used. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Subtropical-man, how on earth is including the Indigenous names in parenthesis (literally a few words) destructive to the entire article? That sounds a bit dramatic... It takes nothing away from the article and for those who don't care for it, it's a few words they can and probably do skip past without paying much attention to. If anything it is constructive, it immediately indicates that maybe there is more to them than just what every foreign tourist thinks from their limited exposure or limited understanding of the places. Our cities have a rich and diverse cultural background which for a lot of people would be something interesting and the few words in parenthesis might just encourage them to continue reading more attentively to learn about what and why the names are there. That is not destructive. What is destructive is suggesting that Indigenous Peoples (like myself) should not be allowed to contribute to articles about the places we are from, that's straight out of the pre-1967 referendum era. Wikipedia is a place where anyone can contribute. You're not Australian, but you're allowed to be here in the Australian Wikipedians's notice board even when you're telling us that you don't want us contributing - we are all allowed to contribute. GadigalGuy (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hi GadigalGuy, your concerns are very valid and also thank you for contributing positive reasons for inclusivity. I'd encourage you to contribute to the RfC process below. I think it will be a much more effective way to move forward in resolving this conflict. Poketama (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by IronBattalion

I'm Back! My hiatus is on a 1-day suspension... and it seems like Talk:Perth was my warmup. Just as a warning, I'm not going to hold back... I'm just over this. In any case, this section is just so I can collect my thoughts, no matter how scattered they may be. It honestly doesn't deserve its own place in the discussion, but I hope I can muster a coherent arguement that makes a lick of sense.

Here's a statement for where I stand and that I would recommend everyone else in this discussion to also state this declaration for the record so we can sort of understand where everyone's coming from and get this mess of a non-thing sorted: ___ Name: IronBattalion Country (State) : Australia (Queensland) Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Descent: No Tribe/Ethnicity: Anglo-Celtic roots (ie. Australian for multiple generations) ___ The simple question, in my opinion, is not whether an Indigenous name in its original form is an exact one-to-one comparison to a European concept of government or land. It is, instead, about if it generally corresponds to either the Local Government Area (LGA) or General Metropolitan Area (GMA) of the named region, or alternatively is stated to be the indigenous name for THE governmental area.

And hey... Guess what! Languages change! Words change! If you are surprised by this, I have a question for you... what language do you speak and how stuck in the past is it? For instance, the word 'Aborigine' changed, in Australia, from meaning a person of a native people to a derogatory slur. When did this change start... my uneducated guess is that it probably began around the 1966 referendum, when awareness around Indigenous issues started to dramatically increase. That is normal and is completely natural with how languages evolve. Thus, we shouldn't be hung up the original use of the word if there is an accepted contemporary use of that word for a LGA or GMA.

And before someone says something along the lines of 'This is Wikipedia... consensus must be maintained, thus any minority of historic value and their language is unwelcome because…’ stop it. For me, as repeatedly argued about in Talk:Perth, this is simply a tyranny of the majority which is unhelpful to establish NPOV for institutionally marginalised communities. As for spelling complaints, just use the most common spelling, after all there is a reason we use 'they entered a room' and not 'they entred a room'. Moreover, had we maybe been kinder in the initial and continuous (plus destructive) process of colonisation, we might actually have a decent source for this that would satisfy someone's definition of 'sufficient'. The United States Wikipedian community and their pages would probably also be having this conversation about Native American names had there not been another, much larger, imported minority. To be honest we have the opposite/inverse relationship, after all we rarely talk about the blackbirds.

By the way @Subtropical-man:, just as a pure attempt to try and connect some sort of comparison with the limited information I can gather about you… what has Gdansk got right next to its first mention on its English Wikipedia Page? What does it say? According to this argument you a making, you choose one or the other but not both. By that Logic, if Polish was a minority language in the city of Gdansk, and the English Wikipedia was writing the article anew, would it be reasonable to you that it be named Danzig with no mention of its Polish name. Additionally, would you categorise the apology made by our former PM ago for the separation of families and severe discriminatory mistreatment (and I'm putting this lightly) from previous governments as politics or, to paraphrase your own words, 'social... redress'. For me... personally... I would count that as just plain old human decency, not politics! And certainly nothing that would this site's neutrality. Even with that caveat, Politics, unfortunately (or fortunately depending on who you are), is unable to be fully separated from our work, no matter for how long we plug our ears. Our biases are constant in influencing opinions and output, our job is to manage them with context in mind.

Honestly, I would prefer if, for this minuscule issue, that Australians could govern for ourselves on whether we should include this at all through reasonable argument rather than being forced into a non-sensical argument no one wants originating from the other side of the world. For as much as we strive to maintain neutrality, which an outside source can help to bring, there is a world's difference in perspective from living in Australia and knowing the general sensitivities, history, and politics surrounding this whole thing compared to sitting on the other side of the world and gallivanting as if you know the entire issue like a true-blue native. For me, personally, the cognitive dissonance of this concept is just too much. And I know I will get flak for this paragraph... So... all who disagree... take your best shot.

In conclusion, my argument is: as long as we find a source, and can attribute it to a either a LGA or a GMA, then including the indigenous name would not drag down the neutrality of an article or somehow make it worse through its inclusion. To say so would be farcical, and disingenuous to both yourself and each other.

With great headaches (and greatly reduced tolerance for idiotic arguments), IronBattalion (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You made me laugh with your style of expression and content of your Statement :D :D Unfortunately, you pinged me so I feel obligated to respond. You gave the example of Gdańsk/Danzig. You wrote: "By that Logic, if Polish was a minority language in the city of Gdansk, and the English Wikipedia was writing the article anew, would it be reasonable to you that it be named Danzig with no mention of its Polish name" - nonsense. Do you know why? Because both names functioned officially. Danzig was official name of this city and Gdańsk was (and now is) official name of the city. Both names must be included in the intro. However, I explained it before that Gdańsk lies in a region called (in Polish) "pl:Kaszuby". Kaszuby is region, historical and geographical. That is why in the article Gdańsk will never write about Kaszuby in the first sentence. Region is not city, article is about city, so. Second case. You wrote: "Honestly, I would prefer if, for this minuscule issue, that Australians could govern" - you are entitled to your own opinion, however, your idea has no chance on the Wikipedia because English Wikipedia is neither owned by the Australian Government nor by the Australians. It is a global encyclopedia, and every person in the world has exactly the same rights in WiIkipedia as Australians. There are no better or worse people here. However, you can create your own encyclopedia "Australian Wiki". The wiki tools are open-licensed. On the Australian Wiki, Australians will be able to do whatever they want :) Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Project on Wikipedia and Australian history

(Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red)

An article dated 27 May in The Canberra Times titled "Search for gaps in Wiki Australian history" outlines a new research project headed by Heather Ford of the University of Technology Sydney aimed at overcoming bias in regard to women, minorities and the Indigenous. (Looks as if Ford's biography needs updating.)--Ipigott (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

More details from University of Technology Sydney under "What’s missing from Wikipedia’s history of Australia?".--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

See also this interview with Heather Ford.--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, very interesting. Poketama (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Work on new article "1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game" of Australian Rules football completed

The lengthy and arduous task of compiling the accurate and detailed article on the 28 October 1916 exhibition match of Australian Rules football, contested in London between two teams of AIF soldiers, is now completed. Please see both 1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game and Talk:1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game. Lindsay658 (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Jerome Laxale

Some BLP issues about alleged misconduct and some newbies/SPAs constantly reverting Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Karma Saheb works in marketing for The Social Media Network Pty Ltd, who ran the campaign for Laxale. There is a COI going on here. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The page has been protected for 2 days. I have tried rewording the passage on sexual misconduct allegations but would appreciate someone else having another look. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

He may have a COI but he also has a point. Last time I checked, half the allegations were entirely unsourced and the rest was sourced to one Sky News article, which is not good enough for something relatively serious. That section needs to go entirely unless someone hugely tightens up the sourcing and language, assuming the sources exist at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

There is currently an ongoing discussion on the talk page here to establish consensus on the wording of this story. Would appreciate some input to help reach a solution.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2022

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board → Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard – In most places on Wikipedia, there is no space between "notice" and "board", so this page might reasonably moved to a location that also has no space there. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how to suppress the error, but this is the template I have to use and the talk page is a redirect. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Since active requested moves must take place in the Talk: namespace, this proposal has been transferred to WT:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. It can be transferred back to this page after it has been closed, and then the talk page can again be redirected if editors prefer it to be so. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 07:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organ Historical Trust of Australia

It's hard to find citations to Australian institutions that do good stuff. Umbrella Entertainment did terrific work on restoring old Oz films and releasing specialty stuff but didn't rate any citations and the article got the chop. Now it's the Organ Historical Trust of Australia under the pump. Anyone able to assist? Doug butler (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Closed as keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)