Talk:K'gari

Former name or the other name?

Previously the article stated -> "Fraser Island, also known as "K'gari". I just edited it and changed it to "K'gari, 'formally' known as Fraser Island" since officially Fraser island is not its name anymore and likely to stay that way. People should be made aware it doesn't have two names but only one official name. And that Fraser island was the former official name. But feel maybe it needs to be discussed since it's a gray new territory here. Some context is the reason they changed the name was supposedly to get rid of the colonial stain given the life story of Eliza Fraser, who practically demonized indigenous people. So it's extremely unlikely the government will officially rename the island back as "Fraser island" ever again. Nvtuil (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The name Fraser Island remains official and the primary name. It is not the former name at all. See my comments on the move discussion above. If you are going to make claims about such things, point to evidence for what you claim. This is an encyclopedia, citations needed! Kerry (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you meant 'formerly' not 'formally', but, more importantly, I think a change to the lead sentence should follow the move, not precede it. Tkanus ^dialogue 00:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The Islands name has never formally changed from Fraser Island, It's still in the public consultation phase. [1] Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Time to update the name.

Since 2011, K’gari has been recognised as an alternative name for what was Fraser Island, but now the latter has been dropped entirely.
K’gari was originally known by Europeans as Great Sandy Island before it was changed to Fraser Island, after Scotswoman Eliza Fraser was shipwrecked there in the 1830s.
The name had been deemed culturally inappropriate as Fraser wrote a debunked negative tale of her “captivity” by the Butchulla people, who she called “savages” and “cannibals”, after the shipwreck. The lies spread throughout the English colony despite being contradicted by fellow survivors.
— https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/07/fraser-island-no-more-kgaris-official-name-change-corrects-a-historic-wrong

Pandapod1 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

In light of this news, the name of the article should be changed. Jmbranum (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sincere edits of this page to correct the misuse of 'Fraser Island' as the place's name are being undone/reverted without proper reason. The name of this place is officially 'K'gari' since June 2023, and its former name, and the name that some people know it as, is 'Fraser Island'. Stating it like this is consistent with other like renamed places - Uluru. There is a racist and colonialist background to defending the use of Fraser Island as the 'correct' name that is extremely harmful and the user 'Ash' needs to stop reverting attempts to better the situation to suit their own agenda with improper reasoning behind doing so. 165.85.11.116 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, whoever you are, it is not racist to recognise Australia's colonial and indigenous history, together, side by side. It is Australia's history. Many people have grown up and know the island as Fraser. To not recognise this is harmful to society as a whole. Nobody is saying its the 'correct name', just the alternate name. Take a lead out of New Zealand's book. They use both English and Maori words in their signage, vernacular, books and so on. We could do the same here. But to say the colonialist name for an island is racist, is by itself incredibly racist. Ash Kuss (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The complaint is 'There is a racist and colonialist background to defending the use of Fraser Island as the 'correct' name, which is legitimate. Naming is an ownership tool and one of the first things that colonists did to claim/enable ownership of Australia. The complaint is not talking about not recognising the colonial name (it literally says the opposite), nor saying that Indigenous history and colonial history are somehow divisible. It is legitimate to claim that it is racist for someone to defend a colonial name as the correct name OVER the Indigenous name when it is the official name. Many locals, including me, still call it Fraser Island. I am making a conscious effort to change this and it doesn't help when people insist that its name is Fraser Island just because locals use that name. Us locals also call McDonalds 'Maccas' but that's not its official name. This page should be called K'gari. 117.20.69.180 (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It sounds as if you are trying to label me as racist and colonialist (?) for defending the use of Fraser Island as the 'correct' name, which is a strawman argument. I have never made such claims, so you should probably retract your accusation. I believe Fraser is just as legitimate a name as K'gari. If someone wants to call it K'gari, okay, if someone else wants to call it Fraser, great. Just don't correct them and insist they use the other name because the one they're using hurts people's feelings. Also, it's odd that you seem to have negative attitudes towards colonialism, seeing as you are free to express your opinions and live in a nation that has come about as a result of it. Ash Kuss (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

100% in agreement mate. I go to "Straddie" not "North Stradbroke Island" - but I wouldn't expect to find the page called "Straddie".

But seems people are only happy with Australia being a majority democratic nation, when it suits them. Fourixxxx (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Straddie is a shorthand name or nickname for North Stradbroke Island, not an alternate name, there's a difference. Fraser is an alternate name to K'gari, and the former happens to be the one many still prefer. The government consulted a vocal minority on the name change and then didn't bring it to the people of Queensland before changing it. Instead, they just went ahead and did it. I'd say that's undemocratic. Ash Kuss (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Citation needed for Fraser being the "one many still prefer".

2. The article itself talks about the open consultation process; you haven't provided any evidence that it is limited in participation to the "vocal minority". If you felt so strongly about this issue, you should have campaigned against the name change and motivated by the silent majority you believe are against the change.

3. The Government doesn't need to put every minute issue to a referendum for it to be democratic. We live in a system of indirect democracy, where it is understood that the Government holds a mandate to enact changes that don't affect the (state) Constitution. If you don't like this, feel free to criticise it and vote for the other guys next election. But you can't call it "undemocratic".

4. The official Government name is K'gari. Fraser isn't even dual-recognised. That alone is sufficient to change the page name to "K'gari (Fraser Island)".

5. Note that if you were consistent in your arguments (about colonial history being valid history etc), you would support changing Uluru's page to "Ayers Rock" and have the first sentence be "Ayers Rock, officially Uluru...". I'll leave it for you to reflect on why this is absurd, and consequently, all your arguments reduce down to an absurdity and thus can be discarded. LStravaganz (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Nope. This is a conversation thread, not a wikipedia article, and I am referring to something that is common knowledge. So even if you shout "Source! Source! Source!" it can't be deleted as that would be edit warring and can lead to sanctions.
2. It actually doesn't. It was a closed consultation on Fraser Island and likely only people of a certain heritage were listened to by the current state government, certainly not the people of Queensland. So yes, it was 100% undemocratic.
3. Usually the state would put a proposed change to the people, because uhh.. uhh... accountability. A referendum or plebiscite is a federal government matter, so it doesn't really apply here. A proposed change was not put to the people of Queensland so again, it is 100% undemocratic.
4. Look on literally any article about Fraser/K'gari on a mainstream media source (channel 9, 7, 10, ABC, SBS, news.com, etc.), which is usually some non-news story about a kid who gets bitten by a dingo, and you will see a slew of comments from Queenslanders saying it's still Fraser to them.
5. Lol, solid strawman argument, loving the use of projection and non-sequiturs (not really). You're asserting that I would agree with all that has happened in Australian history (I don't). You're claiming that Ayers Rock was renamed back to Uluru during the colonial period (it was 1993).

You can keep huffing and puffing about why you think I'm wrong cobber, I actually don't mind the use of both Fraser and K'Gari. It seems to be the state government who wishes to erase Anglicised history, which is actually racist. Ash Kuss (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll keep "huffing and puffing" so long as you insist on doing the same. A bit strange for you to call the kettle black on this.

1. Actually, K'gari is the name many prefer, and since this is a "conversation thread", I needn't supply proof and you just have to accept it.

2. A simple Google search will reveal that the state government received 6000 submissions from different stakeholders, including the public. If you cared about this issue enough, maybe you should have engaged with this process.

3. Actually the State does hold referendums, because the State has a Constitution. Bit embarrassing you don't know this mate.

4. Don't really care what random Facebook article comments says. K'gari is the official name.

5. It's not a strawman argument, because I'm asking you to defend changing Uluru's page in order to consistently apply your stance.

Overall I hope readers of this thread can see very clearly your absolute ignorance of even basic stuff (see Point 3 for a particular egregious case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome), and as such realise that no weight at all should be lent to your drivel. LStravaganz (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Lol, 6000 submissions ,which may or may not be from Queenslanders, is by far, a resounding minority since our population is over 5 and a half million. I can't have engaged in the process if it was an open and closed case that the state government wished to waste its time and our taxpayer dollars on.
2. I know that a referendum is on proposed changes to a constitution whether state or federal. A name change generally doesn't fall into that camp. The state government still should have been accountable to it's 5 and a half million constituents instead of 60,00, but it's probably less than that let's be honest.
3. You don't care about what Queenslanders have to say about Fraser Island? You only care about what the loud minority have to say? How sad and small-minded of you!.
4. Nope, you're projecting an illogical non-sequitur. Some people still do call it Ayers Rock, some people call it Uluru, and that's a source coming from their territory government. So why is the Queensland state government so busy trying to legislate Anglicised names out? That's actually racist.
5. As to your last paragraph, buy a mirror. Walk away, learn something productive. The rest of us will take it from here (and will call the island Fraser). Good day.

Ash Kuss (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

1. No response to this, thanks for conceding that K'gari is actually the name most people prefer.

2. Actually 6000 submissions is an incredibly high number of submissions for any public consultation process. Clearly the other 5 million QLD'ers didn't care enough to make a submission, so it's not like their absence should count as "no" votes.

3. Backpedal as hard as you want mate, you were just straight up wrong before about referendums, which you thought were a federal-only matter. No shame in admitting you learnt something new from me here.

4. I do care about what QLD'ers have to say, and the overwhelming number of them clearly didn't care enough to make submissions, or wrote in supportive submissions.

5. Again, you need to defend changing the name of Uluru's page to "Ayers Rock", or "Ayers Rock (Uluru)" in order to stay consistent to your stance of preventing the erasure of Anglicised names, which you consider racist. You have yet to provide a statement on where you stand on this. If you persist in refusing to take a stance, then I can only conclude your position is hypocritical and thus safe to be ignored.

6. Bit rich asking me to "learn something" when you literally didn't know QLD can hold state referendums. Maybe come back to me after you graduate from a primary-school social-studies class, and then we can talk. LStravaganz (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Not only that, but most media outlets (including Murdoch media) and businesses on the ground use K'gari (see list on voy:Talk:K'gari). Only Ash Kuss is claiming that most Queenslanders favour the old name. SHB2000 (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope. It's already been acknowledged that many Queenslanders on the comments section of news media posts still prefer Fraser. Ash Kuss (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The commons section of news media posts are not a reliable indicator as the demographics of such commentators tend to be skewed. It's just as good of an indicator as going to X (formerly Twitter) or Reddit. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

1. No response because your argument is intellectually dishonest and it's not worth the energy.
2. 6000 submissions is a lot if over 5000 of them were possibly created by bots. We don't know who or what those submissions are,;that information is not available on public record. Either way, the change shouldn't have happened without the say of all Queenslanders. It's good that you concede that most Queenslanders don't care because you're acknowledging that the name change was unnecessary and most people just want to get on with their lives. By default, this is a no, as in, no change because it doesn't matter. By your reasoning, in their "absence" (strange wording as there wasn't anything to attend), it definitely wouldn't count as a yes.
3. Referenda are typically a federal matter and are usually not carried out by the state. Even if it were, the state should have had an open consultation with all Queenslanders, which is not a referendum. A referendum, as acknowledged, has to do with matters regarding its constitution, which bears no relevance to an unnecessary name change, so it's bizarre that you even bring it up.
4. Read what you said slowly: "the overwhelming number of them clearly didn't care enough to make submissions, or write* in supportive submissions.", which would, by default, be a no. Otherwise, you would read the room and respect the general attitude, whether you agree with it or not. Clearly, the Palaszczuk/Miles government hadn't respected this, which is sad and wrong.
5. You're continuing with your nonsensical strawman argument, I see. The burden of proof is not on me to defend Ayers Rock over Uluru. It has already been acknowledged that the Northern Territory Government refers to its national park by both names. The Queensland state government is not consistent with this by dropping the Anglicised name Fraser for its island. Therefore, the burden of proof is actually on the government to explain why they went ahead with their nanny-state decision, which is inconsistent with many dual named places around Australia.
6. Thanks mate, you've just indicated to everyone where you haven't graduated from. The adults will take it from here, and many of us still call the island Fraser. This clearly triggers you so I suggest you grow up first. Then we can talk.

Ash Kuss (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If you have to resort to dishonesty and fear with "over 5000 of them were possibly created by bots", I'm not sure if your take on this is credible at all. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

If not, then we don't know for sure who or what comprises those submissions. Therefore, my suggestion that it could be bots is not dishonest or fearmongering. Seeing as you're talking about no personal attacks, I'll throw that one back at you. If the submissions are available, I'll happily concede the point. Ash Kuss (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

No personal attacks, thank you. --SHB2000 Ash Kuss (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Why was I pinged? SHB2000 (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Are the submissions available for public viewing? Ash Kuss (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, speaking of Uluru/Ayers Rock, they still use the dual names. This is because Uluru being a noun in the Pitjantjatjara language doesn't have an English translation - so the Anglicised name remains.

So what's the problem with retaining the dual name on Fraser? Ash Kuss (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If you read my initial comment you'll see I have no objection to "K'gari (Fraser Island)". So you're engaging in a bit of strawman here big fella. LStravaganz (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Fraser Island (K'gari)*. We are a nation that is part of the British Commonwealth, so the indigenous name comes second. Ash Kuss (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Support name change to "K'gari (Fraser Island)" on the basis that K'gari is the sole official Government-sanctioned name since 7 June 2023 (official source), and Fraser Island is a common but unofficial name. Having both names in the title satifies the WP:TITLE guide of recognisability while respecting the official and normative name change. LStravaganz (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with my argument. Fraser is indeed a common (and popular) unofficial alternate name for the Island. Ash Kuss (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Great, then I expect you to support renaming the page to "K'gari (Fraser Island)" when the move request happens. LStravaganz (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Fraser Island (K'gari)*. We are a nation that is part of the British Commonwealth, so the indigenous name comes second. Ash Kuss (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope, that has nothing to do with being part of the British Commonwealth. K'gari (Fraser Island) would reflect WP:COMMONNAME better. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. Until we become a republic, we are very much still part of the monarchy of the British Commonwealth. We have already acknowledged the use of the English language (which we are all beneficiaries of), and the colonisation of our nation and subsequent democracy instead of warring factions. The Commonwealth has everything to do with it. Fraser Island (K'gari) would be much more appropriate. Ash Kuss (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what? Your analogy makes zero sense. SHB2000 (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Tourism Australia has confirmed that traditional owners of the lands our cities are on that have dual names have endorsed the approach TA has taken by putting the English name first. [2]. Ash Kuss (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

And they specifically reflect the names of capital cities, which we'd still use the English name per WP:COMMONNAME, unlike Fraser Island which is a completely different case. SHB2000 (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It is common these days to see dual naming for capital cities across Australia. It's also being rolled out in regional areas and LGAs across the nation's states and territories, which is evidenced under the Further Information heading on the Tourism Australia link above. 210.84.51.113 (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Recent addition to § Toponymy

Related discussions:

• User talk:Ash.david § Adding uncited statements (permalink)
• User talk:Turnagra § Fraser Island (K'gari) Name Change.
• User talk:Twotwos § Fraser Island (K'gari) name change.
• User talk:Tol/Archives/2024/01 § Fraser Island name change.

@Ash.david, @Twotwos, @Turnagra: I believe it would be most productive to centralise discussion regarding Ash.david's addition of "However, many locals and tourists still refer to it as Fraser Island" here, so that we don't have multiple different discussions on different talk pages. I have linked some previous discussions regarding this addition above. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Tol. I see that some sources have been added to back up the comment, but none of them seem to do so. The first three primarily refer to k'gari as the name and only use Fraser Island in the context of other things (eg. the Fraser Island Great Walk) or noting that the island was formerly called Fraser Island, while the fourth doesn't appear to mention the island at all. None of them say anything about how the locals refer to the island.

As an aside, I note that this section was deleted soon after posting. @Ash.david, editing other user's comments or deleting them from talk pages is absolutely not allowed on wikipedia - please have a look at WP:TPOC. Turnagra (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree — Ash.david's most recent edit, adding four references, still does not seem to support the assertion. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Given the continued disruption, I have opened an edit warring noticeboard discussion here (permalink). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, I have removed the former conversation as I believe it was not helpful to anyone let alone the improvement of information on the Fraser Island Wikipedia page. I would like to add that Fraser Island is still referred to under its former name by locals, tourists, businesses, organisations and community groups as the change officially only happened mid-late 2023. Fraser Island has been the widely used and well-known name for many years before the official recognition of K'gari. It takes time for new names to gain widespread adoption, and some people may continue to use the familiar term Fraser Island out of habit or lack of awareness of the indigenous name. Seeing as there has been an issue with citations, I'd be interested to know what kind of sources would be appropriate to back up the statement. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash.david (talk • contribs) 6:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the discussion. Ash.david, as mentioned previously, you're not allowed to edit or remove other people's comments on talk pages in situations like this. You may not see it as helpful, but others might.

As for your question, to back up a statement you need something that actually mentions what you're saying. So in this case, you need to have a source that says something along the lines of "the island is still called Fraser Island by many", which so far none of the sources you've used have had. I'd also be curious to know why you are so insistent on adding this to the article, given that the WP:CONSENSUS so far is that it isn't necessary or properly cited? Turnagra (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Very well. However, I have to disagree with your statement based on my sources. They still refer to the island as both K'gari and Fraser Island which affirms what I'm saying. That, to me, is evidence enough that Fraser Island is and will continue to be part of the social discussion for many years to come. Social discourse isn't something you can vote on, legislate or edit, otherwise it's akin to a totalitarian society. It isn't racist or wrong to refer to the former name in social discourse either. I have changed my statement to reflect that some people (instead of many people) still refer to the former name. Ash Kuss (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ash.david, please stop adding this text to the article, unless you can provide a reliable source that supports it. Regardless of whether something is true or not, it must be verifiable to be included on Wikipedia, and the source you have provided still does not support the claim you are adding, even in your most recent edit. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 13:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tol, I have in good faith provided a source of the UNESCO website that uses both names of the island. I am unsure of what "verifiable source" you are after. I have come to the table by providing a source and making a change to my statement to seem more inclusive and less pointed. I would be happy to include a particular type of source that you suggest, if it can be found. I look forward to your collaboration. Ash Kuss (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ash.david, nowhere in the UNESCO reference can I find any text supporting the statement that "some people still refer to it as Fraser Island". In relation to naming, the source would only support the statement that UNESCO uses both names. To add text on how the island is commonly named, such information must be specifically found in reliable sources (for example, a source stating "most locals refer to the island as 'Fraser Island'"). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 14:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

In a previous edit, I also had a few other sources that referred to using both names, making it part of common public discourse. This is all we are trying to prove here. Some call it Fraser Island, some call it K'gari. Some call it both. This is not racist. It is not wrong. It's just how it is mate. Ash Kuss (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, nowhere did I say "most" local refer to Fraser Island, I initially said "many" locals do, which although truthful, I admit may come across as racially pointed so I changed it to some people do. Ash Kuss (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The reliable source is the Queensland government, who happen to have the mandate that allows for the altering of place names in the state. The government has legally changed the name, and it is verifiable as fact: https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/title/place-names/queensland-place-names-search Fourixxxx (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The Queensland Government has changed colonial names of many places to indigenous ones without the consent of the general public because "Virtue signalling, yay!". Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. And in any case, you can't stop its use in general discourse. So I emphasise again that some people call it by its popular name, Fraser, and some people call it by it's now official name, K'Gari. Both are legitimate names for the island. This is not racist, nor is it wrong. There can be plurality here, even when the Government is trying to legislate it out. Ash Kuss (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The general public did consent to this because they voted in a government last election that took activist positions on name changing to recognise the original Indigenous names. Sad to see that your level of understanding of our indirect democracy system of government is poorer than a Year 6 social-studies student.

And inb4 the "but that's undemocratic", then so is every other piece of legislation passed without a statewide referendum. But I don't see you campaigning on changing QLD to a direct democracy system, so I can only conclude that your arguments made on the basis of "democracy" is done either out of ignorance, idiocy or bad faith. LStravaganz (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey primary-school social-studies student, one comment is enough. Ash Kuss (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No personal attacks, thank you. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

No personal attacks, thank you. --SHB2000. You heard him. Ash Kuss (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That was directed at you. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Cool, but this is an open thread, so I can redirect your comment wherever I like. "...is done either out of ignorance, idiocy or bad faith.". In this case, the user LStravaganz. Ash Kuss (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You were the one who made it personal by using "primary-school social-studies student" at LStravaganz hence why I quoted policy at you. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"Sad to see that your level of understanding of our indirect democracy system of government is poorer than a Year 6 social-studies student.". Another personal attack from LStravaganz. So you should quote the policy at them too. Unless your treatment is preferential? Ash Kuss (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You made it personal, while LStravaganz directed it at your behavior. They're two separate issues, and while both are problematic, it is more problematic if you make it personal. Not that I endorse LStravaganz's behavior either. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope. To claim LStravaganz directed their insults at my behaviour and didn't make it personal is subjective and actually not for you to decide. The comments were directed at me and they were personal. Therefore, their comments are equally problematic. So you can either quote the policy at them or you're a hypocrite. Your choice. Ash Kuss (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a case of WP:IDHT to me; someone else using ad hominem and personal attacks does not give you a license to do the same (and once again, LStravaganz could have been more mellow, but it is not a personal attack). --SHB2000 (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks mate, your hypocrisy is on full display. Should you be speaking on LStravaganz's behalf? I'm guessing no. And you certainly shouldn't dismiss or attempt to downplay how they intended their insults towards me, because that's gaslighting. I'm getting some serious WP:CTDAPE vibes here. Ash Kuss (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I am bounds to quote policy as I see fit, provided it's within enwiki policy and within the WMF ToS and UCoC. Your behavior is quite the example of section 3.1 – Harassment (with name calling bolded), "Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence, appearance, ethnicity, race, religion (or lack thereof), culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, sex, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, or other characteristics. In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression constitute insults collectively, even if individual statements would not." --SHB2000 (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

And you are a gaslighter and a hypcrite. Your comments are attempting to start aggravation for no reason :WP:CTDAPE: so I think you are very much done here. Ash Kuss (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If you cannot discuss things in a civil manner as per the Universal Code of Conduct (which is WMF policy), don't use the WMF's services again. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:CTDAPE And you're attempting to start aggravation for no reason so you are just as guilty of not being civil. Ash Kuss (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The user in question above has been blocked for 1 months for incivility. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The island is now unambiguously known as K'gari

This is identified and verifiable by the Queensland government as such, without any reference to Fraser Island: https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/title/place-names/queensland-place-names-search

All such references to Fraser Island should be made in an historical context, include personal experiences. There is no cause to prevent these references, and no attempt is being made to hide history. The title change is a simple statement of fact, whether one agrees with the new name or not.

We cannot detract from the accuracy of the name in the article because the island is referred to by a previous name "by many". This is anecdotal, definitely not verifiable and cannot be used as justification as opposition to something made legal. Fourixxxx (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, K'Gari is the official name. However, Wikipedia (and hence its contributors) serve its readers rather than the QLD Govt and so has a policy WP:COMMONNAME which directs us to use the name the reader is most likely to expect/use. Obviously what it is most commonly known as will be a matter of some dispute, but locals are probably more aware of this recent name change than those further afield, e.g. other countries. So, if you read earlier discussion on this Talk page, the current balance of opinion is that Fraser Island is still the common name. I expect that this will change over time when the name K'Gari becomes more widely known, but there's 100+ years of the use of Fraser Island to contend with. I note the article Uluru uses that name rather than Ayers Rock as an example of a similar name change, so change is possible. But, as a counter-example, the article about the Italian city of Firenze is called Florence on English Wikipedia reflecting the common name used by English speakers and how entrenched names can be. I note all of these articles commence with a explanation of the dual names, so we are doing what we can to educate the reader. Kerry (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again, there is a failure to provide any evidence to back up these statements - anecdotal evidence does not constitute a valid source. A simple rebuttal would be that there are thousands of years of the use of K'gari to content with. Uluru is exactly a case in point, where "100+ years of the use" cannot be used as an excuse to cling on to an offensive moniker.

How often does one say they are going to Straddie, yet the article title is "Stradbroke Island" - in fact probably "North Stradbroke Island"? In this instance https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMONNAME policy hasn't been applied.

If you really wanted to "educate the reader" you would highlight the offensiveness of using the former name inappropriately as it does represent hundreds of years of oppression of the local community, who fought tirelessly for this name change. Fourixxxx (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Kerry is correct. K'Gari is the official name, but Fraser is still commonly used and will be so for some time to come. In addition, we cannot detract from the accuracy of the article because certain elected officials imposed a name change on the island without a majority of Queensland's consent. The article should, if it has that kind of information, have the name the place is officially known by, and also the name used in popular discourse. Otherwise, it's missing valuable information of its colonial history, which does a disservice to the reader. Ash Kuss (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again @Ash.david whether you like it or not, the Queensland government was elected by the majority of Queenslanders and, as such, have a mandate by the majority of Queenslanders to perform such actions as name changes. The Butchulla people most definitely were not consulted when the name was changed to "Fraser Island".

So, in so much as there are footnotes about the colonial history and name of the island, you should not be attempting to glorify it. Fourixxxx (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your argument that the colonial name is 'offensive' to you is not a valid reason to not educate the reader properly on official and popular names of the island. Fraser Island is in Queensland, Queensland is in Australia which is a democratic nation. The majority of Queenslanders were not consulted on the name change last year, nor were a bunch of other needless name changes to landmarks and locations. I see you have also changed the name of the article without consensus. This is inappropriate and will be undone in due course. You do not get to spout politically (or racially) charged misinformation because you hate colonial history, especially when people get to have a say as a result of it. Show respect where it's due. Colonial history, along with indigenous history, is Australian history. No amount of deletage will change this. Ash Kuss (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your argument that the colonial name is used by your mate "John" is also not valid. The name was democratically changed through consultation receiving nearly 6000 submissions, making it the largest place name consultation undertaken in Queensland's history.

Once again, The Butchulla people most definitely did not receive this same courtesy over 100 years ago, or any time since.

And yes, I agree colonialism is history, as is the name of K'gari - and as history is has no place in modern discourse. However, references should be left to demonstrate the mistakes of our past. Much as Germany teaches about the Holocaust, we should also learn about our shame of colonialism and brutal mistreatment of the native peoples of this great land.

You don't get to continue to spew your (Personal attack removed) because you disagree with decision made by a democratically elected government - as you so pointed out. Fourixxxx (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I think both of you need to calm down.

@Fourixxxx, I agree that the title of the article should probably be K'gari by now, but how you've gone about it is not the way to go about it. If you look across the rest of the talk page, you'll see that this is a contentious topic and needs a formal move request. I'm aware that you've cited WP:RMUM in the move note, but I'd point out that yours was the undiscussed move. That guideline also states if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. I would suggest looking at the arguments which have been used in the past, and calmly explaining your rationale as to why you think these don't apply any longer, along with why you think that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (particularly those on article titles), support the name K'gari over the name Fraser Island.

@Ash.david, you've been repeatedly told that there is not consensus for the content you've added to the article. Rather than persistently trying to add it back, I would strongly suggest that you explain why you think the content is needed, and why you think that the current article content does not cover it. I would also strongly suggest that you reflect back on your previous temporary blocks for edit warring around this exact thing before wholesale reverting the edits of others.

Now, I don't believe I'll be able to revert the move back to the stable title as I lack the necessary permissions when it's a redirect with history, but I strongly suggest that everyone backs off for a bit, has a cuppa, and comes back at a later date with some solid policy-based arguments if you still feel that your point needs to be heard. Turnagra (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've restored it - no special permissions were needed. BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the restoration. Common sense prevails. Ash Kuss (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Turnagra every time we've approached the subject the idea has been drowned out by a vocal minority who are dictated by their emotional connection, that to the actual facts.

Unfortunately, the "correct way" has seen a longer process than the actual government took to rename the island - as is evidenced by this discussion. Fourixxxx (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, I totally agree and I think that some people are letting their ideological views get in the way of actually looking at what is the best title for the article. But a back and forth move war isn't going to accomplish anything other than you likely having administrative action taken against you. Turnagra (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Very well, I appreciate a voice of common sense in a sea of loud conservative mindsets. I'll push for this discussion an request a formal moved as there is little reason for it remain as its former name. Fourixxxx (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good call. As mentioned above, I would suggest looking over the above discussions and the relevant guidelines around article titles to help make your case stronger and address previous concerns which people have had. I'm happy to assist where I can if you need a hand navigating them, just let me know. Turnagra (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

"Once again, the Butchulla people most definitely did not receive this same courtesy over 100 years ago, or any time since."

Racism, through the virtue of signalling state government without proper consultation of the Queensland people does not make Fraser's name change right. It's still wrong. It's also racist to insist people only use the "official" name and not the popular name still commonly used by many Queenslanders.

"And yes, I agree colonialism is history, as is the name of K'gari, and as history is has no place in modern discourse. However, references should be left to demonstrate the mistakes of our past." Good, I'm glad you agree that colonialism is history. It is, however, bold (and sad) of you to assume it doesn't have a place in modern discourse. Here's why: i. You're referring to K'gari with Latin characters used in the English alphabet. Let's face it, if it weren't for Britain colonising Australia, you wouldn't be typing up angry, politicised comments about it. You wouldn't be using the native name of the island at all, and my guess is that many wouldn't care either. ii. The fact that you're referring to Australia as a great land. Without colonisation, you'd have hundreds of micronations, some of which would probably be at war with one another, fighting each other over land disputes. Today, you get to have discourse, albeit heated at times, about our nation's affairs and how we can move forward as one unified Australia, and not have everyone fend for themselves. You have colonialism (and subsequent democracy) to thank for that.

Colonialism was not a mistake. I concede that it made some horrible mistakes, but to assert that colonialism as a whole was a mistake is intellectually dishonest. Many of us are stolen generations of people, either from first nations or from Europe, but we're here now and many of us identify as Australian. You do not see King Charlie coming to apologise for what his ancestors did a long time ago. I think we'd be waiting a long time for something that's never going to happen there. Let's not forget history but instead keep it in perspective here. "You don't get to continue to spew your racist vitriol because you disagree with decisions made by a democratically elected government - as you so pointed out." The democratically elected government usually has a public consultation for these types of decisions. Having the indigenous name alongside the common name was fine, until the common name was dropped. The government, acting like a nanny state, along with some (but not all) of the indigenous peoples, decided they knew what was best and went ahead with it anyway. This is in spite of the fact that they likely knew many Queenslanders would disagree with this decision and that their hard-earned taxpayer dollars would go towards making that happen. So again, let's keep history in perspective here. We elect a government to represent its people within the respective lands and jurisdictions it governs. We do not elect it to turn us into a sorry state because of what happened hundreds of years ago. We are proud Australians, no matter what faith, background, story or ethnicity we might have. All of us together, not a select group of people, make up Australia. For many of us, the island will still be Fraser. For others, it's K'gari. Either is okay. No amount of deletage by the Palaszczuk/Miles government will change that.

Ash Kuss (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I would support using "K'gari" over Fraser Island as most media outlets (including Sky News of all outlets) use "K'gari" – I made a list on voy:Talk:K'gari a while back and would argue the same applies here. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be "Fraser Island" as this is English Wikipedia not Gubbi Gubbi Wikipedia and Fraser Island is the English name. It's just like how Wikipedia calls the capital of Italy "Rome" rather than "Roma". "Roma" is the name recognised by the Italian government but that doesn't mean it should be used in English Wikipedia. Zakary2012 (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:USEENGLISH states that we should use whichever name is used in English when referring to the topic of the article, not that the name must come from English. For this article, a range of editors determined through an extensive discussion just below that the best name for the article is now K'gari. As for your example, if English sources were consistently referring to the city as Roma then we would naturally follow suit - just as we now have articles at Mumbai and Kolkata rather than Bombay and Calcutta. Turnagra (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. I still think though that we should say that Fraser Island is still commonly used rather than just saying it's the former name as this makes it sound obsolete when it actually isn't and is still used by many people. Zakary2012 (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment and supported retaining the title, but we do need a source that unequivocally states 'commonly known as Fraser Island' or 'known by many locals as Fraser Island'. Unfortunately Google analytics which do show it is still the most commonly searched for name are not able to be used here. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually I found this: [3], not enough to state commonly but can also be stated as also known as rather than 'formerly'. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. In my view, the supporters have provided enough evidence in support of the move to demonstrate that K'gari does satisfy the article titles policy. As far as the "per previous RMs" argument goes: previous RMs can be persuasive, but are never binding. If I'm being frightfully honest, reading through the June 2023 RM I would've closed that as a move too. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Fraser Island → K'gari – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. While this is a contentious topic and it has been just under a year since the most recent move request, I believe it is time to finally make this change. Since the island was officially renamed to K'gari in June 2023 the new name has been overwhelmingly used in sources that talk about the island. I have manually assessed each result in a google news search for both names since the change took place (there have been a lot of dingo attacks...). Of the 353 results, 317 primarily use the name K'gari, and a further 30 either use a dual name or use K'gari equally with Fraser Island. Only 6 sources used Fraser Island on its own, indicating a clear preference for the new name in news sources posted after the name has been changed. Crucially, the preference for the new name is strong across all sources, and in international examples - it's not just one or two outlets frequently posting and skewing the results. Many of the articles do mention that Fraser Island is the former name, but this is typically a passing reference in an article that otherwise demonstrates a preference for K'gari.

I also manually assessed google scholar results for this year, and after filtering out a lot of false positives, duplicates, and sources which only had the names used as part of the references (mostly Google getting caught out by authors named K. Gari) I was left with 42 articles. Interestingly, an equal number used K'gari as used Fraser Island (15 each), with 7 either using a dual name or using the names an equal amount. However, the majority of articles were passing references which used the island as a navigational point (eg. "the coast north of K'gari") or as one of several locations (eg. "Specimens were found in the Blue Mountains, the Whitsundays, and Fraser Island"). Articles which focused primarily on the island itself tended to use K'gari, with the total count of references for each name across the academic sources coming in with K'gari at 230 vs. Fraser Island at 69 - again, indicating a stronger usage of the new name.

WP:NAMECHANGES states that If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. The above unambiguously demonstrates that sources written after the change routinely use the new name, and make a strong case that the WP:COMMONNAME of the island is now K'gari - which we should reflect. The most recent move closure saw that usage had shifted and there were grounds to move as of July 2023, but that scholar sources still used Fraser Island predominantly. This has now shifted, with usage even stronger in favour of K'gari. I would also note (as I have seen it come up in previous moves) that the sources used in this are reliable, English sources - WP:USEENGLISH states that we should use the name used in English sources, not that the name needs to be English in origin. As such, the proposed title is still compliant with that. Turnagra (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Even though those sources may primarily use K'gari they also have to mention Fraser Island as being the former name because it's the common name. If the name was the common name by now there would be no need for all this parantheticals and formerlies. It's still too soon to change the title and it really doesn't matter if we change it now or in a decade.

• WP:COMMONNAME states 'generally prefers the name that is most commonly used ... as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above', so the most important issues is not the common name but instead: WP:CRITERIA, if mentions of K'gari need to clarify by using the name Fraser Island then evidently the latter is more recognisable. Naturalness goes to Fraser Island given it conveys more information. Precision and concision are the same for both names. I'm not too sure what the common standard here is in regards to consistency but I do believe reconisability is a more important criteria hence why it is listed above. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I should note that it's only around half of the articles that mention the former name, which includes articles that were about the name change itself and ones posted soon after the change. More recent sources tend not to have such a mention as often. I'd also argue that if it were the common name they wouldn't use the new name at all, and would instead continue to be using the old name.

As for WP:CRITERIA I agree that they're relevant but disagree with your interpretation. Since you brought them up though:

Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. - both titles are equally recognisable as referring to the Island

Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. - as above, the island is overwhelmingly now referred to as K'gari and so this reflects what the subject is now called in English. I think both titles are relatively even on this, to be fair.

Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.) - I agree that both unambiguously refer to the island as the primary topic, but I'd note that there are at least 13 other islands in Canada alone with the name "Fraser Island" and so it's marginally less precise.

Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.) - K'gari is less than half the length of "Fraser Island" and so is significantly shorter.

Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Both titles are roughly consistent with equivalent ones by not being unnecessarily disambiguated. I think you could argue that following the common name of k'gari is more consistent but that's a pretty weak case.

Overall I don't think there are grounds under the WP:CRITERIA to keep the current name, and if anything I would argue they slightly favour a move. Turnagra (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Media organisations may often use a formal/official name over a common name. The fact that many adopted it overnight highlights that.

>both titles are equally recognisable as referring to the Island

There would be no need for articles such as this: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/13/dingo-killed-speargun-kgari-fraser-island to need to reference the old name. The purpose of referencing an old name is to aid the reader, as K'gari is likely unfamiliar to some readers.

>as above, the island is overwhelmingly now referred to as K'gari and so this reflects what the subject is now called in English. I think both titles are relatively even on this, to be fair.

People move slower than news reports, it takes time for old names to fade away and there is clear evidence Fraser Island is still understood by people.

>but I'd note that there are at least 13 other islands in Canada alone with the name "Fraser Island" and so it's marginally less precise.

They're not as notable clearly given this article title doesn't require any disambiguation, NATDIS doesn't apply here.

>K'gari is less than half the length of "Fraser Island" and so is significantly shorter.

Concision is not aiming for an article title as short as possible, it's why the title is United States and not US. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous RMs. The article was previously unilaterally moved to K'gari in September 2021 before being reverted by RM a few weeks later, with the four RMs since reaffirming the existing title. Nothing has changed since then in regards to common name usage, and I think that these RMs are somewhat bludgeoning the process trying to force through a name change.

A great point was also made by @Traumnovelle above, with regards to the fact that the general public are slower to adopt new names than news sites trying to be politically correct. It will still likely be referred to by the majority as Fraser Island for quite a while. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 00:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since then in regards to common name usage the articles I posted have been nearly exclusively since the last move, and demonstrate unambiguously that K'gari is the common name. We don't have a crystal ball to determine what public usage is, and so we go off reliable sources - which are primarily using the new name. I should note that there are over 25 times more articles that exclusively use K'gari (with no reference to the name Fraser Island) than exclusively use Fraser Island (with no reference to the name K'gari), which would hardly be the case if Fraser Island was still the common name as you claim. I also think that waiting nearly a year to open a new request, and then only doing so once it's clear that popular usage of the name has changed, is hardly bludgeoning the process. Turnagra (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Common name is not the sole policy for determining which article name to use, it's recommended because it usually meets WP:CRITERIA, but evidently it fails recognisability because they need to clarify what it is with the old name.

>I should note that there are over 25 times more articles that exclusively use K'gari

Really?

I did a news search, set it to last week and the first page all most use Fraser Island, including the National Indigenous Times: [4], [5], [6], [7],

This one doesn't use it: [8]

If I do a scholar search of only 2024 articles containing K'gari and excluding Fraser I get 30 results, if I look for articles including both terms I get 41 results. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding. With that figure, I'm not comparing articles which use only K'gari to articles which use K'gari and Fraser Island. I'm comparing articles which only use K'gari to articles which only use Fraser Island. Of the 353 sources I found and assessed, 110 exclusively used K'gari compared to just 6 which only used Fraser Island. That's not the sort of ratio that would be the case if Fraser Island was still the common name.

Regardless of this, though, from what I can gather your argument is essentially that a single reference to the name Fraser Island in a source indicates that Fraser Island is the common name, regardless of how many times K'gari is used. You're claiming that even if a news source used the name K'gari 20 times in the article, that wouldn't matter if they say at one point "(formerly Fraser Island)", right? That doesn't exactly feel logical. Turnagra (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm claiming that because the majority of sources still need to mention that it was formerly or also known as Fraser Island shows they are aware there is poor recognisability of the term. Common names are recommended because they typically meet the WP:CRITERIA better than other titles, in this case there is serious doubt over that due to the aforementioned need to disambiguate and clarify a term. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and previous RMs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I tend to concur with Turnagra's assessment based on WP:CRITERIA. The acceptance of K'gari as a name and its usage have increased dramatically since the state government's official name change last year, and we can expect this trend to only continue. As Traumnovelle says above, "it really doesn't matter if we change it now or in a decade" - so, why not now? I know I'm in the minority with this view, and perhaps contrary to current Wiki policy, but I really feel Wikipedia has a unique ability as an online user-driven encyclopedia to reflect notable, long-deliberated and well-intentioned changes in nomenclature in real time (or at least, "realer" time than the print-only encyclopedias of yesteryear). With redirects from the previous name and mentions of it in the first line of the lede, it's not like anybody searching for Fraser Island would be confused for more than a second when they see K'gari come up.

It may also be relevant for this discussion to look at similar cases elsewhere. In the early days of Wikipedia, following some debate, a consensus was often reached in favour of moving articles to reflect growing recognition of their non-English or un-anglicised names, including "Calcutta" to Kolkata (see here), "Mount Cook" to Aoraki / Mount Cook (see here), and keeping Uluru instead of "Ayers Rock" (see here). More recently, there was rather a lot of debate (see here and here) when the page for "Mount McKinley" was moved to Denali in 2015. That move seemingly took place on the very same day that the then-Secretary of the Interior announced the US Government's official renaming of the mountain, and after a week or two of discussion, the apparent consensus was to keep the move. The Denali case seems like a very useful piece of precedent, for which most of the arguments against the move were ultimately dismissed as "procedural concerns" going against the tide of popular opinion (as per Swarm).

Lastly, I know moral considerations behind the name change aren't really relevant here, but I did want to include part of the logic behind the renaming from Fraser Island to K'gari, just as background context for whatever decision is reached here if nothing else: "a key driver for the Butchalla’s demise, according to historians, was the story told by the very Eliza Fraser after whom the island came to be named. She claimed mistreatment at the hands of local people after surviving the wreck of her husband’s alcohol-laden ship on a nearby reef in 1836. The spread of those stories – though they were contradicted by contemporaneous accounts from fellow survivors – helped seal both the island’s English name and the fate of its traditional owners." Neegzistuoja (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

We're here to provide information not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as you've implied with your comment. If the name most people recognise is Fraser Island then we should use that name - per the first WP:CRITERIA.

A move discussion from 2005 isn't a great example, there's a lot of stuff from 2005 we don't do anymore. The New Zealand example is just local consensus going against policy. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. The Denali example was a page moved without any discussion.

>Lastly, I know moral considerations behind the name change aren't really relevant here

They're not. Your whole argument consists of 'but some editors tried to right great wrongs here and got away with it, so lets do that again!' Traumnovelle (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think you can make the “not here to right wrongs” when the dead name policy exists. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 07:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It only applies to people who weren't notable under their birth/original name. It's a matter of WP:BLPPRIVACY not writing great wrongs even if that could be a reason why people supported it. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The article should mention the old name, so it's clearly identifiable as the same place mentioned in old sources. Similar to Chelsea Manning, brackets in first sentence. But the page name should be the name that is verifiable as currently in use, and that's K'gari. MWQs (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Based on the Google Search results, and @Neegzistuoja‘s reasoning - and that living in Australia I hear K’gari used more. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 07:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Australia and WikiProject Protected areas have been notified of this discussion. Turnagra (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per above, particularly WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. BilledMammal (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Recognisable based on what? Who knows this place exists but doesn't know what it's called? The old name is not in use in mainstream Aussie news sources. If anyone has out of date info that's easily solved with a "formerly known as" in the first sentence. There's no need to have a page name that doesn't match what it's currently known as. MWQs (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  See [9] Traumnovelle (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Fraser island as a search term may or may not even correspond to the place, it probably does, but that's still an assumption, not a verifiable source. Even the associated topic in Google trends is "K'gari, island in Australia". And someone searching for Fraser island, if they are looking for the island, will find it in the first line. MWQs (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  What other Fraser Island are people searching for? The related searches all relate to the Australian island.

  >And someone searching for Fraser island, if they are looking for the island, will find it in the first line.

  And someone searching for K'gari will find it too? That's a non-argument when it comes to recognisability. Which is what the average person - not a specialist, and the reader - not the editors would look for. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support Recent coverage of dingo attacks on the island shows a majority of sources are transitioning to using K'gari which would reflect a change in their internal style guides. At some point most of them give the island's previous name for clarity, as we will surely do in this article. We should follow what reliable sources are doing otherwise we are going to be viewed as the outlier pretty quickly. See: ABC The Australian The Guardian Channel 10 Channel 9 News dot com 1 News New Zealand Sky News SBS BBC Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and previous RMs, also the continued creation of move requests does feel like WP:FILIBUSTERING and WP:BLUDGEONING. It was only last August that the last RM occurred and it was in that discussion that a twelve month moratorium had been proposed; there isn't really any significant changes in this request from the previous request that has justified its creation. Happily888 (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  There's is a significant change, since August local mainstream sources have stopped giving the old name to clarify. In August Channel Nine News (the kind of thing old people watch during dinner) "Queensland island of K'gari, formerly known as Fraser Island" https://www.9news.com.au/national/dingoes-kgari-fraser-island-attacks-camping/53757f80-75c0-4b8f-b021-fb48510ca439 vs last week https://www.9news.com.au/national/toddler-bitten-by-dingo-on-kgari/546a95f3-3774-453e-9cf5-f841b94f4e4a it's just the new name. MWQs (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Use the now correct name. Bduke (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support I see no reason to cling to the former name here. Clearly most sources use the new name – universally for offical/formal sources and widely enough for news and academic sources. Just because people are still learning the new name and that articles may mention the former name in a parenthetical for clarity does not mean that the former name should remain the title. Reywas92^Talk 06:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support WP:NAMECHANGES states that extra weight is given to WP:RS written after the name change. The proposer has provided a fairly thorough analysis of search results that show that most RS since the change now use K'gari as the primary name. In most cases, the name Fraser Island is provided for historical context. This is different from using Fraser Island to discuss the place in the present day, thus we should go with K'gari as the WP:COMMONNAME. Dfadden (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  >In most cases, the name Fraser Island is provided for historical context

  No it isn't, the sources aren't encyclopaedias or history books, they're news reportings. Do you see Constantinople used in news reports alongside Istanbul for historical context? The reason the news includes the old name is for clarification, because they expect readers are likely to understand the name Fraser Island but not K'gari. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Some news reports genuinely include the old name for clarification (once in parentheses stating formerly known as or similar). Other news reports are arguably dog whistling given the political nature of the name change, providing undue emphasis on the name change as opposed to the unrelated events they are reporting. Newspapers (and their online equivalent) are only one example of a reliable source, and particularly given the concentration of media ownership in Australia, we should be careful that we don't allow systematic bias through over-reliance on these sources which may misrepresent a particular opinion as the WP:COMMONNAME. I just asked a few colleagues what K'gari is and they readily identified it as the place formerly known as Fraser Island (and we are not in Queensland). Dfadden (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, clarification, because the new name is not recognisable yet.

  >Other news reports are arguably dog whistling

  What...?

  >Newspapers (and their online equivalent) are only one example of a reliable source

  Academic works aren't geared towards a lay person and aren't very useful at gauging recognisability of a term if that's what you're referring to.

  >that we don't allow systematic bias through over-reliance on these sources which may misrepresent a particular opinion as the WP:COMMONNAME.

  What? The media are quick to adopt official name changes, if anything relying on media would misrepresent the common name. The media often use a formal/official that isn't used in by your ordinary Joe.

  Regardless WP:COMMONNAME is not how article titles are decided, it's by the WP:CRITERIA and recognisability is unlikely given the recentness of this change and the continued explanation of the term in media. People are slow to move onto new terms, it takes at least a decade and you still have people using the old term then.

  >I just asked a few colleagues what K'gari is and they readily identified it as the place formerly known as Fraser Island (and we are not in Queensland).

  and If I asked my grandfather about the Queensland island he went to with the dingoes he'd tell me Fraser Island and have no clue there has even been a name change. Recognisability is an important criteria, arguably the most important one; it takes time for recognisability to occur. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, you dont have to agree with me, but I stand by my comments and support the name change. Dfadden (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Support - K'Gari is the new official name and it's the old official name from before colonisation. The Butchulla people deserve their original name for the island to be respected on an international stage rather than the name of a woman who spread salacious lies about them for money. I know that's an emotional argument which Wikipedians don't always like but it's what happened.

As others have mentioned, using K'Gari avoids confusion with other islands. Given that K'Gari is now the officially recognised name it's more confusing to keep using the old name that will likely fall out of use and over time fewer reliable sources will be using the old name. Contrawwftw (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

What other islands is one going to confuse this with?

>it's more confusing to keep using the old name that will likely fall out of use and over time fewer reliable sources will be using the old name

When that happens then it will be appropriate to change the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Only 6 articles from the past year predominantly use the old name, compared to 317 in the same time which predominantly use K'gari. What, exactly, do you think we should be waiting for? Turnagra (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Until the WP:CRITERIA are all met, namely recognisability Traumnovelle (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside that this is a completely different goalpost to what you said literally twenty minutes ago, it's already been demonstrably proven that the new name is much better at meeting the WP:CRITERIA. Recognisability states that it should be recognisable to someone familiar with, though not necessarily an expert in the topic, which is easily cleared by K'gari. Recognisability doesn't mean "literally everyone needs to know this name unambiguously" - that's what redirects are for. Turnagra (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone familiar with the island isn't necessarily familiar with a new name for it. Plenty of people will know this place as Fraser Island. The fact that reliable sources still overwhemingly clarify with Fraser Island shows K'gari isn't as recognisable. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Whare are these people who are "familiar with the island" but don't even know what it's called? It's not that famous? and recent Australian sources all use the current name. MWQs (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You realise familiar doesn't mean subject matter expert right? Plenty of people have visited the island before the name was officially changed.

>and recent Australian sources all use the current name.

Alongside a clarification to the old name... Traumnovelle (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Obviously familiar doesn't mean expert, people with out of date knowledge, or who come here via old sources, should be accommodated by the old name being prominently mentioned (as we do for Chelsea Manning). I would be fine with the page name having "(Fraser Island)" after the current name of the island, e.g. K'gari (Fraser Island). I only object to Fraser Island by itself, nothing recent, local, and reliable calls it just Fraser. MWQs (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• very strongly Support - I live near here, and Kgari / K'gari is definitely the current name in use. e.g. There's a public service announcement on podcast ads about dingo safety that makes no mention of former name. The article should mention the former name prominently, so people can connect it to older references, but the page name should be the current name. If you Google it you'll get a lot of old or foreign sources, but recent local sources refer to it only as K'gari and don't even mention the old name. e.g. https://www.9news.com.au/Kgari you have to go back to August to get a "formerly known as". e.g. https://www.9news.com.au/national/dingoes-kgari-fraser-island-attacks-camping/53757f80-75c0-4b8f-b021-fb48510ca439 (Nine news is very marinstream, verging on conservative). Government website about dingo safety https://parks.desi.qld.gov.au/parks/kgari-fraser/about/wongari-dingoes/dingo-safe it only even mentions the old name in brackets on a few old sections, and old name is always secondary. (It mentions Fraser Coast, but that's on the mainland.) Recent national news, aimed at interstate audiences https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-18/namadgi-act-dingoes-are-rare-and-likely-unique/103825730 only mentions current name. Focus on recent local sides and the name Fraser is just plain wrong MWQs (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Here are two more recent articles than both of your examples which include the name Fraser Island for clarification https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/australian-brook-lamprey-new-fish-species-discovered-in-qld/103985966 https://www.9news.com.au/national/mysterious-creatures-of-the-deep/16cedde8-3cc2-4bbe-b057-83e81d8db4c9#23 Traumnovelle (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Neither of those support keeping the current page name. The first one just has it in brackets "K'gari (Fraser Island)", and the first mention of the island I spotted in the 9 news article was, "A beachgoer stumbled across a dead ray washed ashore on K'gari this week". So from those we should maybe call the page K'gari (Fraser Island), but we should refer to the island as K'gari in the rest of the page. MWQs (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

To add onto which name is more commonly understood. Google Trends clearly shows more people searching with the old name than K'gari, even when including 'Kgari': https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Fraser%20Island,K%27gari,Kgari&hl=en-US Traumnovelle (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I already responded to that the other time you said it. MWQs (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME & it appears the official name is K'gari (Fraser Island)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nford24 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  K'gari (Fraser Island) would be OK, as long as the correct current name is there, and preferably first. I object to the current page name, currently it shows only the incorrect name, but I am fine with any of: K'gari or Kgari or K'gari (Fraser Island) or K'gari (formerly Fraser Island) etc. In the official Queensland Government web pages https://parks.desi.qld.gov.au/parks/kgari-fraser/about/wongari-dingoes/dingo-safe they add "(Fraser Island)" or "(formerly Fraser Island)" in titles about 30% of the time, but always refer to it as just "K'gari" in the text. MWQs (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, the official name is now just K'gari - it was K'gari (Fraser Island) from 2017-2023, but the appended former name has now been dropped from the official title (per [10] [11] [12]). With that said, I would by happy with the article title K'gari (Fraser Island) as suggested above. Dfadden (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support K'gari with or without a gloss, per CRITERIA - we are supposed to make this decision based on the current name as represented by recent, reliable sources published since the name change, not based on search engrams or glosses of the old name presented in the same sources. Let's ground the RM decision on policies and guidelines, not sentiment or "we won the RM debate the last time". Newimpartial (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The evidence presented in this discussion has been strong enough to convince me that K'gari is the WP:COMMONNAME among sources that postdate the name change, thus making the move favorable under WP:NAMECHANGES. See Turnagra, MWQs, and Newimpartial for a sample of users whose argumentation I found compelling. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support. Wikipedia should not generally be a lagging indicator, and evidence has been presented that the island has a new name, and that the new name has widespread acceptance, per WP:NAMECHANGE. This name change is in contrast to examples like Turkey (Türkiye), where the name has changed but acceptance has not followed. Its potential for lagging popular familiarity has me weaken my !vote, as similar to Twitter/X, where the new name is also generally followed by the old name when talked about. This does appear to have been a bit of a bludgeoned process, as raised above, and it probably would have been better to just wait twelve months or so, but at the risk of WP:CRYSTALBALLing, it seems probable that this name will stick. — HTGS (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Granted versus recognised

@Safes007 the independent sources overwhelmingly use 'granted' [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

Even the Butchulla corporation uses the term granted: [21]

It doesn't matter what silly language a court chooses to use, we are not bound to their erroneous choice of words as these rights did not exist until the court granted them. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Native title rights are those that existed before settlement under local laws and customs. This ALRC report discusses them more fully. Some quotes:

• "native title rights and interests which are the subject of the Act are those which existed at sovereignty, survived that fundamental change in legal regime, and now, by resort to the processes of the new legal order, can be enforced and protected. It is those rights and interests which are ‘recognised’ in the common law."
• "the native title rights and interests to which the Native Title Act refers are rights and interests finding their origin in pre-sovereignty law and custom, not rights or interests which are a creature of that Act"

See also the Prescribed Body Corporate website (run by AIATSIS) definition:

• "The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) is legislation passed by the Australian Parliament that recognises the rights and interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in land and waters according to their traditional laws and customs."

The definition given by the Queensland Government:

• "The Queensland Government does not grant native title. It’s usually recognised through a determination made by the Federal Court of Australia. Native title isn’t ‘won’ or ‘given’ – it’s the legal recognition of rights and interests that have existed for thousands of years."

These definitions of legal terms given by courts and legal experts are far more reliable than general media. Additionally some of sources you cite above use the term "recognise":

• "The Butchulla people were recently recognised in Australian law as holding native title"[22]
• "This landmark legal decision recognised the existence of Native Title across an extensive area covering 1805.0334 square kilometres within Butchulla Country."[23] (The previous sentence refers to the judgment being granted to the Butchulla People, not the rights themselves).

There's no reason for Wikipedia to use imprecise and inaccurate language that may mislead people as to workings and content of native title. The word "grant" implies that native title rights are created by government or courts. To use an analogy, it's like if you sign a contract to buy something and you have to go to court to enforce it. The court doesn't "grant" you a right to the thing you bought, it just recognises the right that already existed in the contract. Safes007 (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The majority of sources use the term grant because they did not have any legal rights over this as the aboriginal people lacked civilisation. Regardless it does not matter, the majority of sources use this language and thus we should use the term they use. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to any evidence that supports this claim? Your assertion that the term grant is used because the Butchulla people "did not have any legal rights" as they "lacked civilisation" isn't supported by any sources and is a misunderstanding of how native title works. The above sources explain why this is inaccurate.

There is no evidence to suggest that the native title rights recognised on K'gari are any different to any other native title rights. In the absence of this evidence, we shouldn't use language that suggests otherwise. The legal sources above explicitly state the use of the word "grant" is inaccurate. I'm happy to clarify further if you have any questions about native title. Safes007 (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is all the sources which use the term granted. We should use language the independent sources use and not based on government casuistry. They did not have any legal rights until the decision granted them such. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You cannot simply make assertions that directly contradict provided sources without evidence. The sources above are not just that of the government, but also from the courts and the independent legal commissions. What is the source for your claim? Safes007 (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is what the independent reliable sources state about the decision, which was that they were granted native title rights. Wikipedia is not a law journal and we use common terms rather than legal terms. This isn't just a news reports getting something incorrect, it is used in academic sources too: [24] Traumnovelle (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources do not state the Butchulla people "lacked civilisation" and hence did not have rights as you suggested. This is what I'm asking about. In the absence of such sources, the corrections provided above should be implemented. I don't know of any academic sources that make such a claim. If you have some that support your claims, please provide them. There is nothing about the current wording that makes it less understandable than "granted" to a general audience. In fact it provides more information and avoids making misleading statements about native title. Safes007 (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not making such a claim in the article. The only thing the article should state is that the Butchulla people were granted native title rights, per the sources itself.

You've also combined two sources to change the meaning of one, that is synthesis. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Synthesis doesn't ban you from using anything but the exact words quoted. It is about preventing the synthesis of new ideas. The "meaning" of the sentence only changes if your alternate legal theory of native title was accepted by any reliable body. Hence why I asked for sources. The articles are discussing the fact of the native title decision, not setting down an alternate legal theory. The fact many of the sources you quote also use the terminology "recognised" indicates this.[25][26][27] In the absence of any actual dispute or any sources that support your claims about native title, we should simply use the more accurate language. Safes007 (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Grant versus recognise have different meaning, you have acknowledged that. The difference in wording results in a different meaning. The source 25 is paraphrasing someone else's words, but it also states: 'the determination recognised the ongoing traditional laws and customs of the Butchulla people, while also specifying native title rights' that quite clearly is differentiating the two. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Words also take much of their meaning from the context they are written in. The word "grant" written in the context of an article about the court process above native title that also mentions the determination and recognition of rights does not mislead as to how native title works. However a single sentence that simply states that the Federal Court "granted" native title could suggest that the rights are some new right created by the government. The rewording is to try and avoid this misleading impression.

Also, the quote you cite is simply explaining how native title works and that it originates from local laws and customs. This is explained by the earlier legal quotes above and in the ALRC report more fully at paragraph 4.15:

• "It is thus possible to distinguish between the subject and the product of legal recognition in native title law. The subject of recognition is the set of Indigenous relations ordered by traditional laws and customs. The product of legal recognition is ‘native title’, a set of rights and interests enforceable within the Australian legal system."

Essentially the court recognises both the underlying traditional laws and customs and the native title rights that results from them.

If you still have an issue with the word "recognise", would you be happy to just use the word "determined" like in the judgment? I.e. "In October 2014, the Federal Court determined that the Butchella people held native title rights over the island." Safes007 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No because that is still straying from what the sources state. The government source ultimately makes no sense: if the government did not create the rights then who did, the courts? Traumnovelle (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The rights are those that existed as a result of local laws and customs that existed prior to colonisation. Those rights survived the acquisition of sovereignty by the British. AIATSIS has another good explanatory booklet here to add to the sources earlier (pg 4):

• "native title is a pre-existing right, inherent to Indigenous peoples by virtue of their distinct identity as first owners and occupiers of the land and their continuing systems of law. Native title is not a grant or right that is created by the Australian government nor is it dependent upon the government for its existence although it is dependent on recognition by the common law in order to be enforceable in the Australian legal system."

I am also referring to the language in the judgment. Specifically "The court determines that: ... 4. Native title exists in the Determination Area. 5. The native title is held by the Butchulla People". Using this language gets around needing to decide which of the several words are used to describe the judgment. Ultimately, it is this judgment that is the fact that is used in the article, not the language used to describe it. Safes007 (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This is going no where. We should use the language the sources use to describe it, it doesn't matter how many government institutions write about this absurd idea. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I have requested a WP:3O as I think we are stuck at this point of the dispute. Safes007 (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Determined is an acceptable compromise solution. Per WP:SOURCETYPES, When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. While there are a number of news articles presented that used 'granted', the scholarly sources seem mixed such as [28] which uses recognised and [29] which uses granted. The language the actual ruling uses is neither grant nor recognise but rather determine [30], as the ruling determines they hold the native rights. Of the sources that use 'granted', this source [31] uses it once in a single subtext beneath a picture, this source used the word recognised throughout it multiple times [32], this one uses both the words granted and recognised [33]. There does not seem to be a clear preference in the sources between recognised or granted, and there is no reason why the article cannot simply cite the legal judgment for use of "determined", so the encyclopedia should probably use the legal ruling as a source and use determined. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)