Talk:Acacia decurrens

Acacia decurrens

(Invasive Spices moved this from [1].)

Hi, thanks for getting back to me. What do you mean by 'publicly known'? I provided a second source from Western Sydney University about the sisters' story which further discusses the use of the acacia as a seasonal indicator. [2] There is also a book published by the authors of the website compiling their stories. [3] It is held by 32 libraries Australia-wide, so the use of the website over a hardcopy of their book is purely a matter of convenience. The authors of the website are also published in the Griffith Review about Aboriginal storytelling here, so they could be considered experts on the subject. Other articles on natural features, such as the constellation Orion, include information about the stories people told about them alongside their physical characteristics, so I do not believe that WP:NOTE is relevant here. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I don't think these stories are significant enough WP:IPCEXAMPLES to mention here. The Griffith Review is not bad but I think nonetheless insufficient. Invasive Spices (talk) 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't merely popular culture, though - this is one of the first cultures to come into contact with these plants, and this is their sacred traditions. In the text of the story, it emphasises the role the sisters took in making medicines for the elderly and taking care of the children and animals - as the plants had medicinal roles in Dharawal culture. As I've said before, other articles on natural features regularly include information about the stories people told about them alongside their physical characteristics. You still haven't answered my question as to what you mean by 'publicly known', if that is still a concern of yours. Should we ask for a third opinion from WP:AUS? --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

If this is a Dharawal story and not the author's story then there should be a source for that. I would be satisfied with that. Invasive Spices (talk) 5 April 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that the author is a Dharawal woman, and thus she is a traditional keeper of the story. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think WP:V answers this. You appear familiar with Wikipedia although I can't be sure due to the IP number. I think this is all a normal WP:V matter. Invasive Spices (talk) 6 April 2022 (UTC)

With respect, @Invasive Spices:, simply directing me to a policy or guideline doesn't help me to determine which part of the policy or guideline you think applies in this situation. After all, you initially removed the information while citing WP:NOTE, which clearly states that "the notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists", which was very confusing. Are you happy with keeping the information in the article, sourced to the reliable sources that I have provided? --159.196.100.171 (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Neither of them are WP:RS. [18]Self published sources are never sufficient to establish notability, [19]I can't access this, and I now notice that the Griffith Review merely mentions the author but not the stories and so can't be used. Invasive Spices (talk) 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices:, why are they not RS, when one of the sources is from a university, and another is from the traditional keepers of the story in the Dharawal culture, who are academically published on the broader topic of Aboriginal storytelling? What do the '[18]' and '[19]' in your post refer to? I will seek a third opinion at WP:AUS. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at WP:RSN#Acacia decurrens. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of this. As you have not provided a summary of my position and additional information I have provided to support my position, I have done so. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Invasive Spices: a) Your reference to WP:NOTE in your edit summary is irrelevant to this discussion. b) Please read WP:RSSELF (again, notability doesn't apply) for the admissibility of self-published sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek: This is a reply to things further higher in this discussion from 2 weeks ago and WP:RSSELF does not apply here. WP:SELFSOURCE applies here. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Invasive Spices, I have already demonstrated that the authors are considered experts in the broader field of Aboriginal storytelling. one of them has spoken at CSU, they have contributed to chapters in scholarly books, the national broadcaster, and the son is an associate professor at the centre for advancing Indigenous knowledges. Do you still not consider them experts in the field? If so, why? --159.196.100.171 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Now this is certainly worth having. At this point I think this is sufficient for WP:NOTE – This is why I said that originally. If there were an article for these stories preexisting or if you could supply sources to justify making the article then the debate would be easy. These sources need to be next to the self published (WordPress) ref. If you want to make The Sisters Boo’kerrikin, add this to Dharawal and make Auntie Frances Bodkin I also support all of those. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Bodkin and Bodkin-Andrews appear to be recognised experts writing in their field of expertise. I'd say this is meets WP:SPS. Culturally significant connections to indigenous communities in the native range of a species is the kind of information we want on Wikipedia if we can source it. Guettarda (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no problem with the Bodkin & Bodkin -Andrews reference. The website itself is for me a sufficient guarantee of the authenticity of the story. However the reference which follows is utterly unsatisfactory: it appears to be unreferenced student work (which in its second half plagiarises the tale by Bodkin and Bodkin-Andrews) and there is no basis given within the text which justifies the assertions about the weather signs. "The flowering of Acacia decurrens was used as a seasonal indicator of the ceasing of south-westerly winds and the beginning of a period of gentle rain.[19]" needs a more adequate reference. A Blog by Aunty Frances emanating from the D’harawal website would serve. The student's unreferenced work does not. (As for saying someone is an expert in their field, that is fine, but you need to tie the expert to the words you assert they have said, which is why we use published information as references.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @MargaretRDonald: for being clear about why the source was not appropriate - I had thought it was some sort of notes by a lecturer, rather than a student assignment. I have found that the Bureau of Meteorology maintains a Dharawal seasonal calendar and have used that instead. Hopefully that will be acceptable - if not, there is always Frances Bodkin's book on D'harawal climate and natural resources. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Great that you have found a reference. I think you should use Frances Bodkin's book on climate as well if you have access to a copy and can give the page. It hammers the point and backs up the BOM reference. Your citation would look like this: {{Citation | author1=Bodkin, Frances |editor=Bodkin, Frances | author2=Robertson, Lorraine| title=D'harawal climate and natural resources | date=2013 | publisher=Envirobook | isbn=978-0-85881-245-1|pages=}} Use of her book starts to show that yes, she is indeed an expert on things D'harawal and helps when you come to write her page. (I can't put it in since I have no access to the book to permit me to make the assertion that it references the seasonality remark.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)