Talk:History of Australia (1788–1850)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about History of Australia (1788–1850). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Quick explanation

Quick explanation of what I'm up to here:

1. Moving stuff across from History of Australia before 1901 2. Splitting it up more thematically than it was 3. Trying not to duplicate too much from European exploration of Australia 4. Pondering how much should be split out into history of individual settlements, eg Sydney, Port Arthur, Moreton Bay (I'm thinking as much as possible)

--Skud 15:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

About 1005

If the exact number is known - should we remove the word "about" or is there some doubt. Alan Davidson 04:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Aboriginals

This article lacks any mention of Indigenous Australians during the 1788-1850 period. Yet it's one of the fundamental aspects of the era: this history of contact, Indigenous adaptation to the inflow of settlers... When I have time, I'll see what I can do about it, but if anyone else wants to see to it, please do. Aridd (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.140.195 (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Colonisation

There is a contradiction of facts given in this article regarding the skills of the first convicts. On the one hand the first paragraph says:

"Many convicts were either skilled tradesmen or farmers who had been convicted for trivial crimes and were sentenced to 7 years the time required to set up the infrastructure for the new colony."

Yet further down it says:

"While the settlers were reasonably well-equipped, little consideration had been given to the skills required to make the colony self-supporting - few of the first wave convicts had farming or trade experience (nor the soldiers), and the lack of understanding of Australia's seasonal patterns saw initial attempts at farming fail, leaving only what animals and birds the soldiers were able to shoot."

Which is correct????

203.214.25.254 (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of Australia (1788–1850)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Australia (1788–1850)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ADB":

From Yagan: Hasluck, Alexandra (1967). "Yagan ( - 1833)". Australian Dictionary of Biography. Canberra: National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. ISBN 978-0-522-84459-7. ISSN 1833-7538. OCLC 70677943. Retrieved 2008-03-06.
From Hamilton Hume: Stuart H. Hume, 'Hume, Hamilton (1797 - 1873)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 1, MUP, 1966, pp 564-565
From William Wentworth: Michael Persse (1967). "Wentworth, William Charles (1790 - 1872)". Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 2. MUP. pp. 582–589. Retrieved 2007-08-14.
From Joseph Banks: L. A. Gilbert (1966). "Banks, Sir Joseph (1743 - 1820)". Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 1. MUP. pp. 52–55. Retrieved 2007-11-06.

Reference named "dfat.gov.au":

From Religion in Australia: http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/religion.html
From Culture of Australia: "About Australia: Religious Freedom". Dfat.gov.au. Retrieved 2011-01-29.
From Anglican Church of Australia: About Australia: Religious Freedom

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

18 century the looting period

It is very clear now that the 18 Century was the period where a certain white race was sent around the world to loot indigenous territories its ruins and sacred sites, cultural values and customs as well as usurped the fundamental spiritual knowledge of other mankind race. 82.28.148.67 (talk)david82.28.148.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on History of Australia (1788–1850). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

time warp?

If this article is about 1788-1850, why does it include things like the separation of Queensland 1859 and the establishment of the ACT in 1911 and a range of other events outside of the date range in the title? Does anyone mind if I remove them and/or move them to the corresponding article with the right date range? Kerry (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Australia (1788–1850). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Australia (1788–1850). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130818021205/http://www.kings.edu.au/about/brief-history.html to http://www.kings.edu.au/about/brief-history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Sovereignty

I have removed what looks like a rather specious argument about invasion, saying that this was recognised in international law then and now. An invasion under international law is an occupation of one sovereign state by another, and the notion that the various uncivilised tribes of the day - as per Manning-Clarke - were governed along the lines of sovereign states is a bit of a stretch.

Our article on Sovereignty lists various conditions needed, and it is hard to see where those living in Australia before 1788 had those conditions. It is worth noting that the British had no problem recognising the occupants of Hawai'i and New Zealand as sovereign entities, but regarded Australia as Terra Nullius. Not because they thought nobody was living there, but because there was no identifiable government. I think that if we are talking history, then we must rely on the records and views of the time, rather than romantic notions backformed from two centuries on. --Pete (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Skyring, firstly, apologies for the reversion, but I think that it needs to remain until consensus is reached, as it's obviously not an uncontroversial change. The source appears to be a well-argued piece by a reputable academic, based on the legal bases used at the time in other examples of colonisation and why it's a valid term for other reasons too. It doesn't seem like a "romantic notion" or "specious argument". As the section focuses on the notion of "invasion", it seems like a reasonable addition to me. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. When something is challenged, it needs consensus to be reinserted. What's the hurry, after all?

Instead of restating your own opinion, could you address the points I raise, please? Let's do this in a professional manner, rather than just yelling out our opinions. Rowan Nicholson explicitly uses the concept of sovereignty.

entry by force by one sovereign into the territory of another sovereign.
agents of the British government, including military officers and marines, entered the sovereign territory of the Gadigal people

Our article on Sovereignty does not support Nicholson's argument. The British power was recognised at the time as a sovereign entity, but this does not seem to have applied to the Gadigal people. Do we have any contemporary resources supporting this? If we do not, then it is a modern fancy. --Pete (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring (or whatever his name is) says: "the notion that the various uncivilised tribes of the day - as per Manning-Clarke - were governed along the lines of sovereign states is a bit of a stretch". That statement might be characterised in various manners, but "ignorant" seems admissible here. The argument for Australian Aboriginal sovereignty (unlike the WP article Sovereignty) does not assume that "sovereignty" is an attribute only of centralised government, but gives the word several meanings, one of the main meanings being a people's capacity for self-determination. See e.g. Brennan, Sean; Gunn, Brenda; Williams, George (2004). "'Sovereignty' and its Relevance to Treaty-Making between Indigenous Peoples and Australian Governments". Sydney Law Review. 26: 307. Self-determination of a people includes a right of territorial exclusion, which is traditional among Australian Aboriginal nations. A people whose right of territorial exclusion has been overwhelmingly infringed has been invaded. Errantius (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you address the points raised, please? Thank'ee. --Pete (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I addressed your posts, with a reference to leading scholars. Errantius (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

As it happens, you didn't. Could you take your careful time, note the points I raised, and respond, please? -Pete (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a pertinent response, Errantius. I'm specifically objecting to Nicholson's opinions, where he describes local sovereignty in a historical context. Regardless of what scholars centuries later may claim, this does not reflect the historical reality. This is, after all, an article about history. --Pete (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

While we are waiting for a response from Errantius, perhaps we might consider the mutually exclusive views of Terra Nullius and sovereignty? --Pete (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting the fundamental difficulties with your editing Pete - I am not sure if you have heard, but terra nullius is dead as a concept in relation to Australia since 1992 - Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23 & Overturning the doctrine of terra nullius: the Mabo Case - I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. --Find bruce (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I've read that particular AIATSIS article, and I'm not sure it's an accurate reflection of Mabo. Nevertheless, it's immaterial to the time period under discussion. The colonising British were not privy to the High Court's deliberations two hundred years in the future. If they considered Australia to be Terra nullius - land that has never been a part of a sovereign nation-state, as per the definition provided - then they could hardly imagine that the sovereign nation of the United Kingdom was invading another, could they?

Logically and legally, the two concepts cannot occupy the same ground. --Pete (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking into Mabo, the discussion does not really address the question of invasion. Instead the judgement looks into the ownership of land and the ways in which customary law may be extinguished. On that point, I wholeheartedly agree with the judgement. Seizing ownership of land which was actively being owned, farmed, and enjoyed by those who had been living there since time immemorial is unjust, and Eddie Mabo was correct to stand up for the rights of his people. They owned the land, simple as that.

However, Mabo makes no comment on any pre-existing sovereignty, and certainly does not recognise any notion of invasion. Two passages caught my eye:

33. International law recognized conquest, cession, and occupation of territory that was terra nullius as three of the effective ways of acquiring sovereignty. No other way is presently relevant (27) See E. Evatt, "The Acquisition of Territory in Australia and New Zealand" in (1968) Grotian Society Papers, p 16, who mentions only cession and occupation as relevant to the Australasian colonies.

and

But what of the annexation of territory not occupied by British subjects? It was only with the colonising of territories that were uninhabited or treated as such that settlement came to be recognised as an effective means of acquiring sovereignty, additional to conquest and cession. There is no question of annexation of the Islands by conquest or cession so it must be taken that they were acquired by settlement even though, long before European contact, they were occupied and cultivated by the Meriam people.

The High Court has declined to support the notion of invasion in Mabo. If anybody wishes to argue otherwise, please point me to passages in support of their view. --Pete (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Once again you have completely missed the point - you relied upon terra nullis & I responded pointing out reliable sources that show terra nullius is a debunked concept in relation to most of Australia. In hindisght my response was a mistake because whether you or I agree that invasion is the appropriate description is irrelevant. Going back to basics, Wikipedia is about presenting in a neutral point of view what the reliable sources say. Where a matter is controverisial such that reliable sources differ, it is appropriate to represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. There is no doubt that describing the history of Australia between 1788 and 1850 as an invasion is an opinion and is, as the article states, controversial. What that means is that it should be presented as an opinion with an in text attribution for the source of that opinion. The material you have repeatedly deleted does exactly that - it quotes an opinion of a person with relevant expertese, from a reliable source, with an in text attribution that makes it clear as an opinion. So far all you have presented is your personal opinion as to why you think that opinion is "specious". Your invitation to debate the meaning of Mabo would be to engage in original research which has no place on wikipedia. In the absence of any proper basis for removing sourced material that presents a signifigant point of view, it would appear that the material should be restored to the article. --Find bruce (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

(Comment written before Find bruce's above - edit conflict.) Both Errantius and I have addressed the points you raised, and what I wrote before has nothing to do with my opinion (and btw I don't believe that your reversion fits WP:BRD). The question here is whether points from Rowan Nicholson's article are worthy of inclusion here, regardless of whether the (obviously currently inadequate) Wikipedia article on sovereignty matches Nicholson's analysis and interpretation of the topic. The Conversation article cited before you removed it also links to Was Australia Colonised by an Invasion of Sovereign Territory?, in which Nicholson sets out his arguments at greater length, and concludes "not with complete certainty but with a high degree of confidence, that before colonisation the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia were sovereign within their territories in the strict sense of international law". The issue of whether the British invaded a sovereign territory is indeed relevant, even essential, to understanding the history of Australia, regardless of whether you agree with the premise or not. Although no Wikipedia article can possibly do the whole topic justice, I think that mention of Atkinson's article is wholly relevant in this context. Possibly in a separate section and paraphrased slightly differently (more paraphrase, less quote). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Merely restating your own opinion in support of another is hardly convincing. It seems a pretty straightforward matter to me. Nicholson claims that the British settlement was an invasion of one sovereign nation by another. This was not how it was regarded at the time, and rewriting history in this fashion is rather like contending that the D-Day invasion of 1944 was nothing but a summer holiday on a grand scale.

I addressed Mabo because it was raised as a reference. It refers to the occupation of the Meriam islands as being settlement, rather than conquest or cession, the only other legal ways of acquiring sovereignty. The word "invasion" is not found in the text, nor does it present the existing occupants of these islands as having any sovereignty; rather it discusses the imposition of British sovereignty. It seems that the law then and now is that there was no sovereign nations existing in Australia in pre-colonial times, and that therefore the British arrival can only be described as an invasion if one is being loose with the term. I don't think that a historical article is a good place to use loose and misleading language unless we mark it clearly as such. Do you? --Pete (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that show Nicholson is expresing a fringe view, you should have no difficulty difficulty in being able to cite them. In the absence of you being able to cite these reliable sources, neutral point of view, a fundamental pillar of wikipedia, requires the material to be included, with due weight. --Find bruce (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Do tell? That sounds like a perversion of WP:NPOV to me. One could use that argument to justify the insertion of all kinds of twaddle on fringe sites, claiming it is up to those opposing blatant nonsense to find a mainstream source denouncing it. It is an opinion piece, the claims are rebutted in the discussion, it has no place in this history article. We have an article on modern political discussion regarding this very topic - the History Wars - and it is quite appropriate there. --Pete (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

WP operates on general scholarly criteria, including those for neutral point of view as well as those for argument with scholarly support. Those criteria are not satisfied fully by what was thought at the time of an event by anybody involved in it or by the subsequent deliberations of a court in any jurisdiction. Such expressions of view should be taken into account, but cannot be determinative for purposes of scholarship. And, as to expressions of view at the time of the event, expressions from both or all sides should be considered.

I and others have engaged with you elsewhere. Kindly forgive that on my phone I can’t produce those links, but you will know where. I have come to the conclusion that you are a time waster. I request you to leave WP. This is not censorship of your views: it is an opinion that your contributions to WP are not of a quality sufficient for consideration. Errantius (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a personal attack to me. Could I ask you to discuss the matter at hand, rather than other editors, please? --Pete (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Reluctant to enter this discussion as I am, anyway my two cents worth. As far as I can tell both sides of the discussion above have valid points. The currently removed text seems to me to be a bit on the POV side of things and by itself does not provide balance. Equally it is also an important analysis (==expert opinion) by a person qualified to make such an analysis. I think it should be reinserted, provided it is reworded, possibly along the lines of a couple of sentences [then]<a referenced statement about what was understood at the time> [now]Some experts, for example Nicholson 2020, have assessed the arrival of British peoples as an "invasion" as it was defined in international law even during the nineteenth century.<refed of course - and even the quote in a note if you wish> I actually think this subject has the potential to be a whole section on its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. My main objection is to the inclusion of what is clearly an opinion - let's face it, The Conversation is all opinion pieces intended to stimulate robust discussion - into what is supposed to be a serious history article. That sort of thing has a place in other articles, but trying to rewrite history from 200 years on is pushing it a little. I might welcome some serious scholarship looking at the then legal basis of colonisation. The Mabo decision referenced above had some wonderful and well-sourced quotes, which could usefully be included. --Pete (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Re the The Conversation, yes largely "opinons" but equally, as far as I am aware, they are not "bloggers" or "radio talk back shock jocks" or "tabloids", they are peer reviewed experts in their respective fields. In short, the "meme" should go back in, but not in its current form. Regards. AoziweAoziwe (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Perish the thought that academics may disagree in their views! But if you would care to draft something, we can take a look at it. I'm not going to support somebody rewriting history, reframing 18th-century reality in 21st-century terms. That just misleads readers coming here for information. --Pete (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, if you think that history means an absolute and factual account of things that happened, I suggest that you re-examine your understanding of the concept. And The Conversation does offer serious scholarship. But, back on topic, I think you'll find that what Aoziwe has suggested is pretty close to what I suggested earlier. Either way, I'm happy for Aoziwe to re-draft - my time and brain is preoccupied with too much else at the moment, so thanks for that. A separate article is a good idea, but can you imagine the talk page discussions??!! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"…if you think that history means an absolute and factual account of things that happened…". Are you familiar with the concept of a strawman argument, brother? History, by its very name, is a story about what happened. But let me ask you a question. Are you familiar with the concept of Fake news? There are enough records of the days of European settlement of Australia to know what those early British people thought about the place and the people and their relations with same. The legal charters and decisions that authorised their ventures are likewise numerous. We might be fuzzy on some of the details, and the sketches and watercolours they made are nothing like the sort of streaming video we get nowadays, but we have a pretty good idea. There is not a one of those British officers who were given a warrant to invade a sovereign nation, nor did any one of them declare that this is what they were doing. If you have any information to the contrary, I should be interested to see it.

What Nicholson is doing, and you are supporting, is reframing history in false terms. It is as spurious as the nonsense emerging from the White House about the battles for the airports of Colonial America. Our readers come to us for information. We have a responsibility to give them the best we can. Not gaslight them into some delusion. --Pete (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You have accused me of making a personal attack, which is defined as comment on the person, not on the content. My comments were confined to content, which I think in the case of comments signed by you amounts to persistent time-wasting. The comment that I am now responding to is IMHO more time-wasting: for you are still arguing that whether the British "invaded" depends upon what they themselves can be shown to have categorised what they were doing, rather than how their actions should be categorised in terms of today's scholarship—and today's scholarship is the game that WP is in. Further, some of the language of that comment is rather personal. Errantius (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you respond to the points made, please? Repeating your opinion gets us nowhere. If you don't understand something, just ask, and I'll do what I can to aid understanding and communication. --Pete (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I've only just noticed this discussion. In the above, I see elements of "history is written by the victors" leading to a bias brought about by relying on contemporary English written sources. I see an assertion that "Australia was not a sovereign nation-state" which appears to be true, but discounts the possibility that it was multiple sovereign nations. I recall a long time ago reading All Quiet on the Western Front at high school. It's a novel, but still shows that the objective facts are viewed and reported by someone with a particular viewpoint. I am not a historian, but note that just because one side said there was nothing to invade does not conclusively indicate that an invasion could not have occurred. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

In this case, history was written by the people who wrote stuff down, and the locals didn't write anything down, so what we get is reports written in English by the British through colonial eyes. Not going to presnt those reports as neutral, objective, and unbiased. However, the same people at the same time regarded New Zealand as a sovereign nation, because the locals there behaved rather differently and were organised effectively and had actual cities and power structures and tended to beat the pants off the Brits at every opportunity. Indigenous sovereignty looks to be something raised in recent years by Australian baby-boomers of European ancestry and culture rather than anything existing ab origine.. --Pete (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous place names

On 2 March 2021, new user GadigalGuy introduced several Indigenous place names as the primary names. This was reverted by Skyring (aka Pete), stating: "Need sourcing for all this stuff, especially in a history article. WP:FRINGE also applies - alternate views does not mean we include everything. Discuss and seek consensus, please."

That could, I think, have been better said: "all this stuff" and reference to WP:FRINGE were inappropriate. The requests for sourcing and to seek consensus, however, I think are right. GadigalGuy please make a proposal for use of Indigenous place names, including how they are to be sourced. Errantius (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it seriously being suggested that the NSW government had a fringe or alternative viewpoint when it named Kamay Botany Bay National Park? Wikipedia is required to be written from a neutral perspective, that is verified by reliable sources. To recount the history of Australia only from the perspective of those who arrived in the first fleet & subsequently and ignore the perspective of the first nation people is not neutral. My only issues is that it doesn't cite the reliable sources that exist, both contemporary & modern. --Find bruce (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal by GadigalGuy

Hopefully I’m contributing to this discussion correctly, my apologies, I was unaware that this discussion existed until the notification appeared.

While I respect the opinion to seek consensus for the entirety of my “stuff” (as I did recognise that the addition of information regarding violent conflicts would be confronting and likely face a challenge), with regard to place names specifically, the Australian Government have had a policy since 1992 which outlines how the issue is to be dealt with, created by the Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying & Mapping. (See: Policy guidelines for the recording and use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Place Names - Prepared by the Committee for Geographical Names In Australia, October 1992^[1] - I’ll refer to this as the Naming Policy)

Section 3.3.1 states that the intention of the Naming Policy is “To ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander place names are recognised by all Australia as being part of Australian heritage and need to be preserved.” - With regards to this article, without any reference to Indigenous Place Names it completely disregards the intent of the Naming Policy.

There are government and academic sources that outline the Indigenous place names, I am happy to provide references to those - Section 3.3.2.K mentions that “The wishes of the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community must be respected in relation to names and related information associated with areas of land currently occupied or areas of traditional association.”, given that not all Place Names have been formally recorded, the wishes of Indigenous Peoples to display the names should still be respected in spite of the availability of a formal source.

Section 3.3.5 discusses the naming format, suggesting a dual naming system may be used and the name accepted by the local community (ie. the Indigenous community at the time) should be the primary name with the alternate (younger Colonial) name recognised secondary. By putting them alongside the colonial names in the format “Indigenous Name (Colonial Name)”, this acts as a simple show of respect to my culture, accurately representing the history and allowing both names to appear side by side equally - While also respecting the Naming Policy.

While my personal opinion is that to accurately tell the true & correct history, Indigenous place names should be included as anything less would be an incorrect version of the history, my intent in my contribution was not to be controversial/offer a ‘fringe’ alternate view, but to uphold the Naming Policy that actually already describes the official Australian Government position clearly that the names should be included where possible “to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander place names are recognised by all of Australia as being part of Australian heritage and need to be preserved.”.

Notwithstanding that, the UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) of which Australia is a signatory to, states in Article 11. “1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature.”, and, in Article 13. “1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.” - As a Gadigal Person, one of the things I am doing to protect my culture & retain certain place names is to provide those Indigenous place names alongside the newer Colonial place names; while it is a small act, I hope that it is non-controversial, as it makes a notable difference for myself and other Indigenous Peoples towards the acknowledgement of our cultures.^[2]

I hope that the consensus would be to reinstate the Indigenous place names with the dual naming system mentioned above. GadigalGuy (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

References of Indigenous Place Names are as follows in the naming format: (note, I’ll update this list as I have the time throughout the week)

Gadi, Eora Nation (Sydney, New South Wales, Australia)^[3]^[4]

GadigalGuy (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Thanks. My major concern is sourcing, and dropping a whole bunch of unsourced material into a history article in the dead of night looked pretty suss to me. We still have a sourcing policy?

Your edit notes mentioned "equal representation" for place names, which I find a little hard to swallow, with place names as well known as "Sydney" or "Hobart". Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, which specifically doesn't give equal weight to all points of view. If a view is not widely held, and I believe we are talking about a significant variation in weight here, then it is a fringe view. Appropriate in an article on the place itself, where alternate names are relevant, not so much in a more general article. On checking a few articles, I note that traditional Indigenous mames rarely feature in our articles on significant Australian places such as Sydney or Hobart, and I question what policy is being used to justify their inclusion here.

Some Indigenous names have become part of the general usage. Uluru and Ayers Rock, for example. That usage is widespread and long-standing. But Gadi is not in general usage, and while that may change in tbe future, it is not the case now. Not by a long shot.

References to UN and Commonwealth policies are all very well, but if Wikipedia were an arm of the UN, or run by Scott Morrison it would be a different place. What Wikipedia policies justify unsourced inclusion of extreme minority views?

--Pete (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of sourcing, I'm only new to contributing to Wikipedia, I figured linking to specific wikipedia articles on conflicts was good enough for a source on those issues (I can't actually understand why the article doesn't refer to wars that were significant in that time period if it is intending to represent the 'history of Australia in 1788-1850', they are a part of that history?), and sources for the place names is something I will get around to throughout the week, that's understandable.

While Wikipedia does have the neutrality policy, I'm not sure it goes against dual-naming as place names throughout articles aren't a subjective opinion or point of view, in this context they're an objective fact; the Neutrality policy appears to be only referring to points of view as it mentions in the introduction. It also states that "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." - Key points being 'to provide complete information' & 'does not mean exclusion', providing Indigenous place names would adhere to this?

While the Neutrality policy does discuss Title Naming, it refers specifically to article titles and not general content throughout the articles with regards to formatting, so it doesn't appear to exclude dual-naming within the content of an article. However, Naming Conventions refers to content within an article and states that if "the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used." & outlines the "format: "historical name (modern name)"" - If due weight is to be given based on widespread general usage, and the article is specifically referring to the time of the events in 1788-1850, the Indigenous population (broadly speaking) outnumbered the Colonists 750,000 to 1,500 (at least up until the Smallpox outbreak & various acts of violence) so the dominant names for the locations were in fact the Indigenous names, ie. Gadi (Sydney), Kamay (Botany Bay) and so on. (I don't think it serves any purpose to exclude either name, I'd prefer both side by side out of respect, but the guideline suggests that format anyway, so I think it's acceptable)

Using Indigenous place names also doesn't appear to come under the Fringe Theory banner, the addition of the names are not opposing anything, there is no advocation of complete removal of the non-Indigenous name, the Indigenous names are complementing the non-Indigenous names to provide a more accurate & complete representation of the history - while also respecting Indigenous culture. The names are not a [Fringe_theories#Spectrum_of_fringe_theories |conspiracy or pseudoscience], they are recognised by the relevant Governing Authorities which administer their localities. For example, City of Sydney Local Government recognise Gadi & Eora Nation as names for Sydney & Sydney Metropolitan Area respectively.

Separate to the references from Wikipedia's guides above; Why respecting Indigenous cultures is an important issue, and why I mention it, specifically on Wikipedia, is that Wikipedia for some time has known about a systemic bias on Wikipedia as a result of the 'dominant' view being presented and inadequate representation of minority groups. The Wikipedia Foundation has begun making efforts to correct this misrepresentation but it is an ongoing project. The reason why other articles rarely feature Indigenous place names is likely due to this issue. (I'll look into these when I can, I only created my account yesterday so I have a few articles to get around to, I came across this article first)

It's also one of the reasons I decided to take part in contributing, as it is clear there appears to be very little representation from Indigenous editors, particularly Gadigal Peoples who are tied to the events of Colonisation directly and the articles don't accurately represent academically accepted knowledge surrounding the events or places, nor what actually happened to my ancestors. Point taken on the Reference to UN & Commonwealth policies, and that seems logical from a purely 'wikipedia neutral' perspective. Ultimately, I'm firmly of the belief it would be incorrect to say that Indigenous Peoples are an extreme minority group, indeed at the time that the article is discussing, we were actually the majority of the population inhabiting Australia; we certainly aren't extreme or trying to push conspiracy theories, just hoping for proper representation and for articles to provide complete information, as they should.

I note that I do have a bias in favour of the 'Indigenous perspective', which is why I am trying to focus on the more objective 'place name' addition where I can minimise my bias (ie. stating the name of a place rather than describing the events that took place there).

GadigalGuy (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

We welcome experts in various fields, and bias isn't an issue until it conflicts with Wikipedia policy, which I believe it does in this case. WP:WEIGHT is the problem here. First, although this is an article of the history of Australia in a certain time period, obviously we do not include every event, and there must necessarily be some consideration of which events to include and in how much detail.

Second, you use "equal representation" as your basis for including Indigenous place names alongside the far more well-known and well-used names. Is there really any practical purpose to give another name for Sydney or Hobart, beyond your own personal preference? Sydney is used 163 000 times in Wikipedia, while the name you suggest needs "equal representation" occurs zero times, at least in relation to the city of Sydney. That is an overwhelmingly minority view, and we must give common usage more consideration than your own personal opinion, unless there is some important consideration, which I'm not seeing here. --Pete (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, for the WP:WEIGHT problem with regards to WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS & WP:CSB - the main issue I see with that is as it stands, based on the content, the current article equates more to the "Colonial History of Australia 1788-1850" (WP:PRECISION) rather than a broad "History of Australia 1788-1850" as it only shows one section of Indigenous involvement tacked on at the end like an afterthought - given that Indigenous Peoples were the majority population grouping at the time, the weight ought to be the other way around. (However, that's an issue for another day as that's not my main goal - the dual-naming is the main thing I want to achieve here).

The practical purpose of "equal representation" for Wikipedia specifically is to make an effort towards WP:CSB and so that the article is true & correct with regards to the actual locations rather than a misleading narrative - should a history article be factual and should it display the widely recognised name at the time of the events in the article? (As suggested by naming general guidelines)

The practical purpose of "equal representation" on a more broad scale isn't limited to my personal preference, there is a growing movement throughout Australia to acknowledge Indigenous place names, such as AusPost Acknowledgement, Port Jackson & Botany Bay, General Movement as a few examples. It also serves the purpose towards reconciliation from the societal issue of Cultural Suppression & deprivation of Indigenous Rights - the fact that Sydney occurs 163,000 times and Gadi occurs zero times is a perfect example of that suppression. That Colonists intended to eliminate Indigenous Peoples is a well known fact, the relevance of that in this context is that it included elimination of Cultural knowledge by punishing people when they spoke or expressed Indigenous languages - ie. there is a reason why Gadi doesn't occur as much as Sydney across Wikipedia. By excluding Indigenous place names from articles such as this, it only aids in the continuation of that Cultural suppression. I'd like to think that is an important consideration.

Does it detract from the article if the dual-naming were to be included?

GadigalGuy (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

There are various Wikipedias in various languages. This is the English-language Wikipedia and is aimed at contemporary English speakers. Unless the Indigenous names are widely used in modern Australian English, then they have no place in a general article.

You say the Indigenous names were widely used at the time, and if you have sources for this, please present them. It sounds to me like you are following some internal chain of logic on that point.

This is a history article, and history is the record of events. I suggest that the events you are referring to are only recorded in English-language descriptions and names used in those records are naturally going to be the ones the authors are familiar with. Eg. Sydney, rather than Gadi, though local names may have been given for more remote locations. It would depend on the sources you are using for this Wikipedia content.

Of course the history of Australia is biased towards the views of the colonists. They are the ones who recorded events. The sad history of the interaction of the colonists with the locals is a matter of record, and I am not suggesting that it be whitewashed. Just that we stick to Wikipolicy. Using Wikipedia to present an individual or partisan view is always fraught, and it is best to stick to reliable sources, rather than present opinions or attempt to recast past events in a Twenty-First Century framework. --Pete (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Below are the names of the following sites as recorded by the relevant government authorities, and relevant sources. Each source is a government source in the field of history/conservation - in academics, government sources are considered reliable and credible (ironically, wikipedia is not so I can't help but laugh that this is where this discussion is taking place), and given that the governments are the ones who determine the officially recognised names and have that ultimate authority, I believe the names they use are acceptable. I also believe the sources to be acceptable given that they are authoritative, credible and relevant agencies within the field of Australian history/conservation.

Kamay (Botany Bay) ^[1] - Commonwealth Government of Australia (National Museum of Australia)
Warrane (Sydney Cove) ^[2] - Government of New South Wales (Historic Houses Trust of NSW, Sydney Living Museums)
Gadi (Sydney) ^[3] - Government of New South Wales (The Australian Museum)
Wadjemup (Rottnest Island) ^[4] - Government of Western Australia (Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions)

When I have the time later in the week, I hope that I will be able to proceed to update the article with these four names & their citations (I'll be doing the same for other articles also). I'd go ahead and do that now, as I believe I have the relevant sourcing, and given that the lack of sources was the reason for the reversion, but out of respect for this discussion I'll wait. I also can't really put into words what seemingly insignificant changes like this mean to myself and other Indigenous Peoples, it's a part of the healing/reconciliation process.

GadigalGuy (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

References

I don't think you grasp the point being made. Of course there are Indigenous names for localities, and reliable sources may be found for their current use by a distinct minority, but rarely in common usage, apart from a few well-known examples. We are writing an historical article here, and if the original records do not mention the names you insist must be used, and if they are not in common use currently, then why should we include them at all? WP:PLACE applies as part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style

(ETA) I'm guessing you are fairly new around here. Discussions on how to present details have occupied a vast amount of time in Wikipedia. The debate over whether years should be presented as AD or CE was epic and pivotal. We had editors altering (say) 50 BC to 50 BCE, and other editors following them around and changing them back. This was so that individual editors would feel good about details being in their preferred format. Multiply that by every other distinction you may imagine - metric or imperial units, American date format or not, abbreviations, and yes, place names. The proper place to discuss your desires is not here, but on the talk page of the relevant style policy pages. --Pete (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll admit it is hard to grasp the point being made as the discussion topic has been a bit broader than specifically sourcing, which I can accept is my responsibility for going off topic with the place names discussion above. The reversion to my contribution was because there wasn't any sourcing (again, my fault for going off topic), I have now addressed the actual issue of sourcing and provided credible authoritative sources to specifically address the lack of sourcing.

For the non-source specific topic - I actually think WP:PLACE is fine as is, it talks about how the name should reflect the common historical name (in its English form) at the time the article is discussing, if that name is known - I agree that it applies as you mention.

In the time of the article (1788-1850), the First Fleet arrived with approximately 1500 Colonists.

At that same time, the Indigenous population was approximately 750,000.

So, the majority population was the Indigenous group, not the Colonists. This link is where those figures come from.

Given that the Indigenous population was the majority, then it stands to reason that their place names were the ones in widespread common use, as they were the majority.

Those names (Gadi/Kamay/Warrane/Wadjemup) are stated in the sources linked in my previous response (eg. "Before it was named Sydney, it was called Gadi.")^[1] - Government of New South Wales (The Australian Museum).

I should probably note, Gadi/Kamay/Warrane/Wadjemup is the historical English form - Indigenous Peoples did not use the Latin Alphabet, so Gadi/Kamay/Warrane/Wadjemup are translations from the spoken pronunciation into their (historical) English form.

Assuming we are held to equal standard for sourcing, if you can provide evidence that shows that the majority population (the Indigenous Peoples) in 1788-1850 did not use the Indigenous name for each location, that the claim by the NSW Government regarding Gadi is incorrect, I'll accept that evidence and give up on this.

I don't really know what else I can say to justify changing the place names to the names they ought to be as per the guidelines, widespread use at the time of the article (1788-1850), and government sources which also indicate both current and historical use - but as per the guidelines, the historical use is the key here.

Yes I am new, with respect (you'll probably roll your eyes at my assertion here, but I say it with the kindest intention possible, while text is hard to convey that intention), comparing whether BC vs BCE is the right terminology, is a little bit different to something that has actual broader societal impacts on an oppressed subsection of the population. Yes I know it's not the UN, it's only wikipedia, but this isn't just semantics over metric vs imperial measurements in an article - it forms part of an ongoing broader societal issue and we do have a responsibility to recognise that relationship as we are making attempts to represent that same society in its history, in a highly public format, in a way that does have an actual impact on reconciliation in the (non-Wikipedia) real world. We have a responsibility to present a truthful history.

GadigalGuy (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

References

^ https://australian.museum/blog/at-the-museum/learning-language-in-gadi/

Interesting argument. It is original research, and inappropriate here. See WP:SYNTH. If you can find a reliable source that states what you claim, then please put that forward. --Pete (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your statement that original research is inappropriate here, this is a talk page and that link you've provided says quite clearly that "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages".

Secondly, which claim have I not provided a credible source for, and is unverifiable information that was not known prior, which would then constitute original research?

With the mention of WP:SYNTH, note that it states on WP:NOTOBVIOUSSYNTH: "To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim." - What unverifiable new claim was made that I am suggesting be added to the article?

For clarification with regards to my specific claims which I have used to justify my position:

- Are you suggesting that the government sources (which are academically acceptable sources), are not credible?

- Are you suggesting that Indigenous Peoples were not the majority population at the time of the First Fleet's arrival? (If so, can you provide evidence that justifies your counter-claim so I can re-evaluate my claim)

- Are you suggesting that Indigenous Peoples did not use Indigenous place names? (If so, as above, please provide evidence so I can re-evaluate)

Also, it appears you're asserting that I am combining sources for one claim - I'm not. In order to justify my position, I have claimed separately that "Indigenous Peoples were the majority", and, "Indigenous Peoples used Indigenous place names", with sources that verify both claims. Which then naturally comes to a conclusion (ie. this, this, therefore this). The conclusion is obvious that the majority population therefore must have used the Indigenous place names. According to WP:NOTOBVIOUSSYNTH under the heading "SYNTH is not the word "thus"", that conclusion "doesn't mean SYNTH has been committed. The word helps explain how facts or ideas are related." - as is my intention; and, under the heading "SYNTH is not obvious II" - this is actually quite similar to the sun & moon comparison example, and is not synth, as both claims are presented with verifiable sources, and a conclusion can then be made from the two claims, it's not a third/new claim. Regardless of that, I don't see the relevance because I am not writing those claims in the article, simply, justifying my position here on the talk page.

GadigalGuy (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought you were using a confected argument to justify edits in the article. Of course you can say whatever you want on a talk page. You seem to be saying that using non-English place names in the English Wikipedia does not violate WP:PLACE because there were more Indigenous Australians than English-speakers at the time of the First Fleet, and thus the Indigenous place names were the common names. First of all, nobody but you is making this claim, and it is therefore original research. Second, I don't believe that it is true. You are using the estimated Indigenous population for the whole continent, and it is unlikely that populations outside the immediate vicinity would have any knowledge of a particular place, let alone know its name. Are you saying that residents on the other side of the continent were familiar with the local name for what would later become Sydney? That sounds like nonsense to me. I doubt that the name penetrated past the Blue Mountains, let alone across the entire landmass and over Bass Strait, which is what you appear to be suggesting. It's not as if what would later become Sydney was of any great importance. It was just one of several sheltered inlets along the coast.

From the moment the British arrived, the local population diminished. Disease, violence, dispossession, discrimination: the assorted evils of colonialism. At the same time the British population went up with each new shipload, and then natural increase set in. The British very likely outnumbered the locals in the Sydney area at or very soon after the First Fleet arrived, and continent-wide the balance would have swung to those of British birth or ancestry some time in the early to mid Nineteenth century. By 1900 these people outnumbered Indigenous Australians by about 40:1.

Your argument is entirely synthetic. Even if it makes sense and adds up - which I don't believe it does - it is not something that can be found in a reliable source. In effect you would have Wikipedia make a claim that cannot be found anywhere else. We cannot lay out a chain of dots and invite our readers to connect them for themselves.

From what I can see, you are promoting names that are used by a tiny fraction of Australia's population as having equal importance to those in common use, and you have no historical sources to back you up. Those who were keeping the records at the time and hence writing the history, used Port Jackson, Sydney Cove, Sydney Town, and Sydney to describe the place where they lived. Some Indigenous names were adopted with a greater or lesser degree of mangling. Woolloomooloo is a notable example.

Looking at your user page, you say:

As an Indigenous Person, my goal is to improve Indigenous representation - I believe that one of the easiest ways to do this is to provide greater awareness of Indigenous Geographical Place Names alongside their Colonial counterparts, and as such, this is my main focus when contributing to Wikipedia.

In multiple edit summaries, you say,

Added Indigenous Place Name alongside Colonial Place Name for equal representation

In the Clyde_River_(New_South_Wales) article, you actually alter the name of the river in the infobox from "Clyde River" to "Bhundoo (Clyde River)". In what universe is Clyde River not the common name?

You've been on Wikipedia for a week, you appear to be a single purpose account intent on pushing a particular viewpoint, and you are heading for trouble. I suggest that you read up on our procedures and follow them. If you disagree with something, that is fine, but use the appropriate procedures to hioghlight and correct a problem. This place is full of nerds and geeks and obsessives of all kinds, and it is the wonder of the internet age that not only have such difficult people managed to work together at all, but have produced such an amazing reference work.

I am not averse to telling the history of Australia and spending some time on the story of the locals who were treated with extreme cruelty and contempt by the colonists. If nothing else, that horrific decline in population tells its own sad story. But you can't just do whatever you like and ignore the rules. You do appreciate that there are rules and procedures here? --Pete (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are "rules and procedures here". One rule is avoid sowing confusion by the way in which user names are employed. WP:UNCONF refers to a confusing employment of a single username, but I think the policy clearly applies to sowing confusion by employing two usernames for the same account and switching between them—as you do in this page with "Pete" and "Skyring". I've complained to you about this before. You are now doing it when opposing a very new user, who is likely to be confused by your tactic. Kindly employ only either "Pete" or "Skyring" anywhere in WP. Errantius (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I only have one username, and it is in accordance with WP:USERNAME. I direct you to WP:SIGNATURE where I am in compliance, although in breach of suggested practice. As I have kept the same signature since 2004, I do not intend to change it. I am hardly alone in signing my posts with a name that is not my username. A few random others are:

At least one of those is an ArbCom member, so perhaps your well-meaning advice would be best directed at a higher level than mine? --Pete (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

GadigalGuy, sorry to hear that you are confused. Blaming me for that isn't going to help. Wikipedia can be a puzzling place, as is the world in general, and my best advice is to treat confusion as a challenge and overcome it. I once suggested coition to a young lady and she replied that I should stop talking and get cracking because she wanted a good root and her husband got home in ten minutes. For Wikipedia, at least, there are copious options for gaining assistance or self-help, and you know, you can always ask for directions. --Pete (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It's getting difficult to follow this, so I'll quote each thing I am responding to (thanks for using the block quote so I am aware of it now, I appreciate that).

Pete/Skyring, You say:

You seem to be saying that using non-English place names in the English Wikipedia does not violate WP:PLACE because there were more Indigenous Australians than English-speakers at the time of the First Fleet, and thus the Indigenous place names were the common names.

I am saying that specifically because you suggested that the majority population equates to the determinant of common usage in an earlier response, suggesting the example of Uluru, and because WP:PLACE states that the name should refer to the historical name if the article is talking about a specific period of time. My response was to show that it satisfies the terms you set down. Regarding this, it's also important to remember, this article is supposedly presenting the History of Australia (1788-1850), so the majority population of Australia at that time would be the population across the entirety of Australia, not arbitrarily restricted to one location where the European arrivals allegedly outnumbered the Eora Peoples (without a source to backup that claim) - this isn't an article on the History of the Sydney Basin where that population breakdown would be relevant.

Pete/Skyring, You say:

First of all, nobody but you is making this claim, and it is therefore original research.

The National Museum of Australia is making the claim. Original Research as per the link you provide in it's first line refers "to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" - I doubt anyone would suggest that The National Museum of Australia is not a reliable source for historical claims, given that the museum is a peak organisation for Australian history. The link I have just provided at the start of this sentence is a published source that exists. It is not original research - I did not create the claim for the specific place names, the National Museum of Australia and various other historical agencies did.

Pete/Skyring, You say:

You are using the estimated Indigenous population for the whole continent

I am indeed - I'm under the belief that the article is for the History of Australia (1788-1850), so I believe it is reasonable to use the estimated population figures for Europeans and Indigenous Peoples across Australia around 1788-1850. As mentioned above this isn't an article on the History of the Sydney Basin where those specific population figures would probably be more relevant.

Pete/Skyring, You say:

Are you saying that residents on the other side of the continent were familiar with the local name for what would later become Sydney? That sounds like nonsense to me.

Effectively, you are claiming that they were not familiar - I don't believe either of us can provide evidence that supports either side of this specific claim so I can not take a position on either side. It is unreasonable to conclude the claim is nonsense or not, given the lack of evidence for either side.

Pete/Skyring, You say:

The British very likely outnumbered the locals in the Sydney area at or very soon after the First Fleet arrived

I'd ask for a source for this claim, but I don't believe it is relevant so I won't waste your time asking for it. The article is the History of Australia (1788-1850), not the History of the Sydney Basin.

Pete/Skyring, You say:

By 1900 these people outnumbered Indigenous Australians by about 40:1.

Same as above, no source provided, but don't worry about it because I don't believe it is relevant. The article is the History of Australia (1788-1850), which does not include the year 1900. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GadigalGuy (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

History of Australia should say Nipaluna (Hobart)

Europe is a continent where multiple languages are employed, and places have multiple names. Istanbul is known as Carigrad by the Slovenes, Истамбул by the Bulgarians, Konstantinúpolis by the Greeks, Mikligarður by the Icelandurs, Stambul by the Russians and so on. Pre-colonial Australia was in a similar position, with the residents using hundreds of distinct languages. There may well have been 750 000 Indigenous Australians at that point, with not a word of English between them, but they hardly called every place in Australia by the same names, now did they?

You changed "Hobart" into "Nipaluna (Hobart)", and now you say that this is because the Indigenous name was the common one in Australia at that time. A bold claim!

There were 3 000 to 15 000 Aboriginal Tasmanians at the time of colonisation, speaking multiple languages. Exactly how were the mainland residents, numbering about 735 000, informed of the name of Hobart?
Hobart itself was nothing special before Europeans arrived. I suggest that the place of the future city had no distinct name, and it wasn't until it became a colonial settlement that the local Indigenous folk would have felt the need to give it a special name, presumably because now it was a town with buildings and streets and ships and weird foreigners, rather than just a random bit of bushland. The British chose their coastal settlements based on safe moorings for ships, whereas those residents preceding their arrival had no means of water transport at all; they wouldn't have cared if it was a good harbour or not.
Again, this is a history article, and the only ones writing the history in colonial times were the British, because they were the only ones writing stuff down. If your suggestion is that they used anything other than Sullivans Cove, Hobart, or Hobarton as the usual place name, I would be very interested to see your sources.
And yet you want Wikipedia to refer to this place as Nipaluna (Hobart), with the name given by the settlers taking a secondary role.

And on and on for every other placename you changed, and apparently want to continue doing so all through Wikipedia. I suggest that if you really feel that this is beneficial to the project, that you gain consensus. --Pete (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

As per my previous response, conveniently immediately below this, my edit/contribution is only regarding Kamay, Warrane, Gadi & Wadjemup at this point in time, as per The National Museum of Australia and various other historical/conservation agencies claims.

However, here is a source with historical journal excerpts regarding Nipaluna

GadigalGuy (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me be crystal clear on this. Nobody is disputing that there are Indigenous names for places, and people with official and scholarly remits maintain lists of them, and that these lists are reliable sources of the finest kind. They are however, not generally the modern English place names our guidelines require. If you want to change our style guides, then there are places and procedures to do just that, and batting words around here is not the way to do it.

On the other point you raise above, it is a matter of record that you changed "Hobart" to "Nipaluna (Hobart)" and "Melbourne" to "Naarm (Melbourne)". Surely you are not denying your own contributions?--Pete (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Postcodes aren't assigned to bodies of water was exactly my point as to the relevance of the example provided to discount one of the names.

The article I continue to refer to by The National Museum of Australia is not just a database or list. It is similar to this article, both present the history about the arrival of the First Fleet - they both talk about the same things, but use different place names - and, one is published by the National Museum of Australia.

I am not denying my own contributions, I'm well aware they are all recorded. It is also recorded several times that I have stated (including in what you are responding to), that I had decided to reduce the scope of what I want to edit in the article to four locations 'at this point in time', and for a number of responses have been solely focusing on one of those locations, Nipaluna is not that location, nor is it one of the four I am presently putting forward after reconsidering the scope several responses ago, the discussion of Nipaluna is off topic.

To ensure absolute clarity in the scope of my suggestion: After much consideration, I am now only wanting to focus on updating one single location from the prior suggestions in this article, that location is Kamay (Botany Bay) as per The National Museum of Australia. I am retracting any suggestion to change any other place name within this article, I no longer wish to change those (ie. Gadi, Warrane, Nipaluna, Naarm, Wadjemup and any other that I may have forgotten that is not Kamay.) and further discussions on those locations are only going to confuse the most up to date suggestion - That is: The History of Australia (1788-1850) should say Kamay (Botany Bay) as per the The National Museum of Australia article.

GadigalGuy (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

And how exactly do you reconcile this with the Wikipedia style guide on place names? Does an editor's personal preference for a place name overide policy discussed and clarified over many years? --Pete (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring, You say:

Your argument is entirely synthetic. Even if it makes sense and adds up - which I don't believe it does - it is not something that can be found in a reliable source. In effect you would have Wikipedia make a claim that cannot be found anywhere else.

As previously mentioned, the claim for the 4 place names that I am reducing my edit/contribution to (Kamay/Warrane/Gadi/Wadjemup), can be found at The National Museum of Australia and various other historical/conservation agencies that have been linked to in previous responses.

Pete/Skyring, You say:

that are used by a tiny fraction of Australia's population

I'd suggest that this appears to be a subjective opinion and not objective fact, particularly as it has no source, and I don't believe this is something we can really argue for or against without conducting a poll of Australians to establish who that 'tiny fraction' is. (Unless there is a source?)

Pete/Skyring, You say:

Those who were keeping the records at the time and hence writing the history, used Port Jackson, Sydney Cove

I am not the one who created the claims, you would be better off taking that argument up with The National Museum of Australia, for example. (With sources of course)— Preceding unsigned comment added by GadigalGuy (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Synthetic argument

The point of WP:SYNTH is "Do not combine material from (one or) multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You are making an argument that Aboriginal placenames should override the common English names in articles about the colonial period because the Indigenous population of the continent outnumbered the European colonists. Whilst parts of your argument are true, they add up to a conclusion not explicitly stated by any reliable source. If you can find a reliable source that says Nipaluna rather than Hobart was the common English name throughout Australia during colonial times, I would be very interested in seeing it. Otherwise I suggest that this is untrue in every sense, and Wikipedia should not promote untruths.

Looking at WP:PLACE we find:

This page in a nutshell: Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution.

I suggest that you are not following correct Wikiprocedure, and as noted, caution is advised. Seeking guidance from more experienced editors, especially those who might agree with your position, is probably the best course of action here. --Pete (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

See previous response as it responds to both Nipaluna & the scope of my contribution at this point in time.

I am not making the argument you suggest. I did not suggest that the population was the determinant, that was your argument that I was responding to. You indicated that the European names should override the Indigenous names due to majority population in previous responses, for example here.

My argument is that we should use the names that credible historical agencies such as [The National Museum of Australia use.

GadigalGuy (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

My position is that we should follow WP:PLACE and use modern English placenames, along with the caveats and exceptions provided for there. I don't think you understand the point regarding sourcing and synthetic arguments, so there's probably no point pursuing it, except to say that if you think Nipaluna was ever the commonly used place name for Hobart across all of Australia, please find me somebody saying that, and dont stack up a precious Jenga pile of argumentation in lieu of a source. --Pete (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring, You say:

In what universe is Clyde River not the common name?

Bhundoo (Clyde River) is actually a topic I am very familiar with, I have strong ties to the local community where, like in the case of Uluru, a large portion do in fact use the Yuin name 'Bhundoo' and there is widespread recognition of that name out of a significant community respect for the local Indigenous elders, who express that the river be referred to in that way. It's so widely recognised, that current discussions in the local community social media group regarding the naming of the newly built bridge express strong support for the bridge to be called "Bhundoo Bridge". This shouldn't really come as a surprise, as the local community has a higher proportion of Indigenous Peoples than the NSW State Average, and is also home to the public school with the highest number of Indigenous students in the Southern NSW District & indeed one of the highest in the country, at 74% of students identifying as Indigenous. - So, in that universe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GadigalGuy (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Clyde River alternative universe

A rather limited and precious universe, it seems. The Permanent Committee on Place Names publishes an Australian Gazetteer which doesn't recognise "Bhundoo", but it gives the location of "Clyde River". Many of your preferred names, such as Gadi, Naarm, Nipaluna, Kamay, Boorloo go unrecognised. This is also the case on the postcode finder provided by Australia Post. Try them for yourself. I suggest that Wikipedia should use modern English place names as per official lists such as the Commonwealth Style Guide and that Indigenous place names be used only where they have become modern English (such as Woolloomooloo) or are now commonly accepted in general usage (such as Uluru) or in some specific context. An article about a specific place should mention any local or former names in the lede and appropriate history setions. A general article like this one, no, but you can always try for consensus. --Pete (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Bhundoo is a river not a town, of course it won’t show up as a town. I note that Clyde River does not appear, nor does Sydney Cove or Botany Bay. I really don’t see the point in going around in circles here.

It appears you are suggesting that The National Museum of Australia is wrong.

Regarding the style manual you suggest, I note that I previously have referred specifically to this longstanding document Policy guidelines for the recording and use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Place Names - Prepared by the Committee for Geographical Names In Australia, October 1992, however it was pointed out to me that Wikipedia has its own guidelines which meant that the Australian Government policy was irrelevant on Wikipedia and that the historical name at the time should be used if known (which it is). Both of our suggestions on Government Guides/Policy are of equal standing here.

GadigalGuy (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Postcodes aren't assigned to bodies of water, for the simple reason that the mailboxes tend to move about. You will search the postcode database in vain for "Bass Strait". You will, however, find Bass Strait, Clyde River, Sydney Cove, and Botany Bay on the list of place names widely used by government. If you checked those names on the Gazatteer linked above you would surely have noticed this.

Nobody is disputing that there are and were Indigenous place names, often pre-existing convict and colonial times, and that they may be found through scholarly and government databases. The question for Wikipedia, where we are writing an encyclopaedia rather than delivering mail or administering a nation, is one of common usage, as laid down in WP:PLACE. Using native, historical, or alternative names is common practice here in ledes and specific sections where they are relevant. But just because somebody can find an older or alternative name does not require that it supplant the modern English name everywhere, or be given equal prominence. Those bloody Turks changed the name of Constantinople and now we have to use it everywhere unless we are talking about a time when it was a common name. The Greeks don't recognise that Constantinople got the works, so why should we? Bloody Turks, naming things any way they like. --Pete (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring, You say:

you appear to be a single purpose account

"Main focus" is not "single" focus, had you have looked at my 'talk' page, you'd see I've been made aware of the WikiProject Australia page and have expressed an interest in contributing more broadly there too, not just on my main focus.

Pete/Skyring, You say:

use the appropriate procedures

Thank you, now that I am becoming aware of them, I am doing exactly that - I haven't re-edited this article yet specifically for that reason.

Pete/Skyring, You say:

But you can't just do whatever you like and ignore the rules. You do appreciate that there are rules and procedures here?

Yes. As an Indigenous person, I'm well aware of the existence of rules. People I care about (& I) have been singled out/followed around stores etc, assumed that we didn't 'appreciate that there are rules' and could not be trusted to follow them, for most of my life; I'm so conditioned to that assumption that it no longer offends me (for me it is annoying more than anything). Respectfully, I will not judge your character, as you've judged mine.

Errantius says:

You are now doing it when opposing a very new user, who is likely to be confused by your tactic.

I actually did think I was talking to two different people throughout this as it shows both names in the editing section, especially when I'm responding in the middle of the night half asleep as it's the only spare time I have.

GadigalGuy (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Current proposal: Kamay (Botany Bay) only

As per my previous comment, after much consideration and due to the fact that the discussion is continuing to go off topic in ways that are misrepresenting the proposal, I am retracting the previous proposal. Please disregard the previous proposal.

The current proposal: I only want to update Botany Bay to say Kamay (Botany Bay) as per The National Museum of Australia.

Reasoning: I do not believe that the National Museum of Australia would get the name wrong for such a prominent part of Australian history, while I am unaware of their internal review processes, I believe the National Museum of Australia no doubt would have had significant consideration prior to publishing and using the name in articles and museum exhibits.

Please & Thanks.

GadigalGuy (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing of this local name is not an issue. Its usage here is. WP:PLACE is the appropriate guideline:

This page in a nutshell: Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution.

The instructions on using older names are worth quoting in detail:

For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods. Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another; in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use.

FYI --Pete (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel like we are making progress now, I'm glad that the source is not an issue. So, thank you for agreeing on that.

With what is quoted, particularly:

Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same - and - in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use.

My interpretation would be that it fits this usage as the usage would be in a similar context (both discuss the arrival of the First Fleet & various events around that time); but more importantly, and what stands out to me specifically, is that Kamay (Botany Bay) does reflect what the modern source is now using - the modern source does not say Kamay alone, nor does it say Botany Bay alone - it consistently uses Kamay (Botany Bay), so my understanding of what reliable English-language sources now use is that Kamay (Botany Bay) fits that description.

That only leaves a substantial majority as the potential snag (ignoring in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use.).

However, I don't think that is much of an issue as The National Museum of Australia is not the only modern source now using Kamay (Botany Bay), here are a few more examples, note that I have tried to pick out a variety of modern sources from different parts of society to show widespread consensus (domestically & internationally), not just one specific group:

Royal Australian Historical Society
Australian National University
Cambridge University Press
Encyclopedia of Australian Science
Alliance Francaise
Photo Australia
St John's Cemetery
Kogarah Historical Society
Art Gallery of NSW
Australian Museum (Page 53) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GadigalGuy (talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
"Kamay (Botany Bay)", googled with quotations for specific use, also presents 'about 31,200 results' ranging from Government Agencies to Tourism Operators

GadigalGuy (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

And the "substantial majority" favours Kamay, you reckon? Did you google "Botany Bay" by any chance? I see millions of hits. --Pete (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the common name of Botany Bay is surprise, surprise, "Botany Bay". Kamay Botany Bay is the name of the national park, not the geographic place name. I refer you to the map published on the park's website. --Pete (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The link you have provided to Google "Botany Bay" results in 'about 2,360,000 results'

If you Google "Kamay", this results in 'about 13,900,000 results'

One reason I left the google search for "Kamay (Botany Bay)" at the bottom of my 'source variety' above, is that it's not really a reliable indicator - I can confirm that Botany Bay also exists in computer games, and would be counted in the Botany Bay search results (the variety of sources ranging from an Encyclopedia to Museums to Organisations and so on is probably a better indicator, as it is a direct cross section of the broader society, but that is just my subjective opinion).

I can also add the NSW State Library and NSW Government (Department of Education) to that list above.

I note that WP:WIAN states: A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity".

The NSW Government (Department of Education) explicitly state: "We now refer to the bay as Kamay Botany Bay".

Note that this NSW Government (Department of Education) statement specifically refers to "the bay" and not "the national park". The name of the national park is also not 'Kamay Botany Bay', it is 'Kamay Botany Bay National Park'. I have tried to avoid blurring the lines between the two, specifically not including reference to the national park in my sources above.

GadigalGuy (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me you are paddling up Kak Spruit. A google search for Kamay shows all sorts of places and people, including Lukas Kamay and Kamay, Texas, which happens to be not far from Archer City, where Larry McMurtry lives and has a fabulous secondhand bookstore which I highly recommend. The dining options in the town have sadly declined since the demise of the Cimmarron Coffee Company, but the famous Dairy Queen will do you a Blueberry Cheesequake if you want about a million calories in one sitting. Once again, just because you can find a reliable source for a name, that doesn't make it the name most often used, or the common name, or the modern English name, or even the official place name. --Pete (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete, you say: "A google search for Kamay shows all sorts of places and people"

That was my point. When you search "Botany Bay", as you suggested was an adequate justification for a substantial majority or "Kamay", it shows millions of results, but those results are unreliable - as such, they can not be used to justify 'substantial majority', perhaps as a last resort if direct sources didn't have a consensus across a broad cross section of society, such as: The National Museum of Australia, The Australian Museum, NSW State Library, NSW Department of Education, Royal Australian Historical Society, Australian National University, Cambridge University Press (& British Museum), Encyclopedia of Australian Science, Alliance Francaise, Photo Australia, St John's Cemetery, Kogarah Historical Society, The Art Gallery of NSW.

However, that broad cross section of society does show consensus with the usage of "Kamay (Botany Bay)", [one neutral and reliable source even explicitly states that the name that is now used, not for the national park but for "the bay" specifically, is "Kamay Botany Bay" (Reference: "We now refer to the bay as Kamay Botany Bay") which fits the description in both WP:WIAN and WP:PLACE.

Skyring/Pete, you say: "just because you can find a reliable source for a name, that doesn't make it the name most often used"

I didn't find just one reliable source, I found a broad cross section of society, and I can find more but that's just exhausting the point.

Also, I refer you to WP:OFFTOPIC, it is coming across as a diversion tactic to waste my time, particularly when I have provided solid sources that prove consensus across 14 different sections of both the domestic & international society.

I also note that WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL 1.D. is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GadigalGuy (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me, as indicated above, that you are being disruptive. Instead of a reliable source that says that Kamay is the common name for Botany Bay we get this Jenga stack of claims that go only a small part of the way there.

The Australian register of place names contains Botany Bay, and not Kamay. Likewise the NSW register. You can hardly claim that Kamay is the common name if the official lists of place names don't include it. End of story. --Pete (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Civility

Extended content

I will make this a separate section, to stop the cluttering of substantive discussion.

On this page I have more than once complained to Pete/Skyring about his using more than one name and switching between them—a practice that I pointed out is liable to sow confusion, at least with a new user, and a new user has confirmed that it has had that effect. Pete/Skyring has replied only that he is entitled to use a signature different from his username, which is not the same question. The problem is identifying oneself in different ways on the same page.

Now Pete/Skyring has indulged in plainly uncivil language (about coition) toward that new user: see WP:CIVIL and WP:DNB. That user has responded most civilly, sticking to the substantive issues. I object in principle to the employment of uncivil language.

I respectfully request Pete/Skyring to employ only one signature and to observe the expected standard of expression. Errantius (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Your kind request is noted, and my response is the same as that used for the last seventeen years. As an aside, it is interesting that you should mention coition in that context. --Pete (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Just a nitpick, Errantius. You ask me to use only one signature. I've only had one signature in seventeen years. What other signature do you think I use? Can you give an example? --Pete (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Well picked. I should have noticed that an editor can employ a signature different from their username. Thus you sign as "Pete" but that comes out in a watchlist and a history as "Skyring". After more than a decade in Wikipedia, I think you are the only user I have seen do this.

I will rephrase my objection. Whether the problem is of username or of signature, the fact is that you employ two names and there is switching between them. Maybe you are not alone and maybe others have found a way to avoid confusion, but this practice is disapproved in WP:SIGPROB:

Signatures that link to, but do not display, the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in User:Nickname or Nickname) can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers). The actual username always appears in the page history, so using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make your signed comments appear to be from a different person. Alternatives include changing your username and including your account name in addition to the username, e.g., in the form User:Example/Nickname.

Kindly adopt one of those suggestions or do something else with the same effect. Errantius (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Censorship by Pete/Skyring

The material above in this section was removed by Pete/Skyring at 06:45 on 10 March with the excuse: "Remove offtopic stuff about sigs and stuff. Take it elsewhere, Bob". The later header "Continued incivility" was also removed, so that what had been posted under it appeared as all that there ever been under "Civility".

This is censorship. Pete/Skyring has been around too long (more than 16 years on his userpage) for it to be any kind of error. If he really thought I had just gone off-topic, he should have said that and asked me to stop. Nothing in WP policy (e.g. WP:TALKOFFTOPIC) justifies mere removal without effective explanation. Therefore I have reinstated the material.

In my view, this removal amounts to vandalism. Therefore I have placed a vandalism warning on Pete/Skyring's Talk page (the "censorship" warning templates appear to apply only to article texts). To revert my revert is likely to be regarded as further vandalism. Errantius (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Despite that warning, Pete/Skyring removed the material again. Therefore he received a second, stronger warning. He deleted both warnings, calling my action "rude and obnoxious", and told me to "stay off" his Talk page. I restored the warnings, which are standard WP warnings. However, the material removed from this Talk page has been restored although hidden. Errantius (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Moving forward, assuming good faith

I have consistently not responded to certain comments, choosing instead to ignore them, however it is obvious that they are not isolated and need to be addressed as they are adding up, becoming a pattern and becoming very unpleasant. WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL 1.D. refers to "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")". WP:CIVIL also says "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment."

On multiple occasions now, my contributions have been branded by Skyring/Pete as:

There has been:

Most of my contributions elsewhere unrelated to this article on Wikipedia have now been Targeted by Skyring/Pete:

My contribution removed
My contributions removed entirely
Information about the region removed which was adding content not replacing anything so I don't understand why WP:PLACE would apply
including removal of content (Etymology) that I had reformatted, but didn't even write - this is telling.
including removal of content (Yuin: "Deep Water") that I had reformatted, but didn't even write - this is also telling.

I have only contributed to 8 articles and in 4 of them a number of my contributions have been removed by Skyring/Pete with no attempt to discuss in in good faith with me. I fail to see how my contributions make the article worse or if further information is required, why they haven't been tagged as such so that I could address them.

The Consensus policy talks about how there should be compromise and an absence of objection in an attempt to find common ground, that "consensus-building involves adapting the proposal" - I have compromised and reduced my proposal from something WP:BOLD to one single place name. I have done everything asked of me in an attempt to constructively contribute and attempting to demonstrate good faith.

I have done so by sticking to the content, providing numerous credible sources, and consistently attempted to satisfy the changing requirements presented to me, rather than making comments about people or judging comments - only to be on the receiving end of those comments, and shut down "end of story".

Errantius has pointed out WP:DNB, and I think that needs to be highlighted again. The above comments by Pete/Skyring are not pleasant, nor are they making me feel welcome or encouraging me to remain a contributor on Wikipedia - there has been a stark contrast between the unpleasant comments and others who have made me feel welcome. I don't know what procedure is available to moderate this situation so I assume this is the correct spot to address the unpleasant comments and politely remove myself from the situation.

I am satisfied that I have attempted to contribute fairly, so I can step away from the discussion to remove myself from the unpleasant comments - this does make me think twice about contributing at all, and I have spent a solid few hours stressing over whether to address this unpleasantness or continue to ignore it. I hope that my time here has not been a complete waste. I appreciate the people that have been helpful.

GadigalGuy (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, GadigalGuy, and I guess if you don't feel welcome, it's on me. However, I have acknowledged your expertise in your chosen field, your zeal and your potential value to the project. Let me reiterate that. Wikipedia needs people who have keen interest in niche fields, know how to do research, and are willing to contribute their expertise. If you are compiling lists of Indigenous place names with sourcing and making this material available to other editors, then good on you, and may you be a shining example.

You are obviously a surprisingly quick study on how to work on Wikipedia, format material, and so on. I was astonished to learn that you have only been here a few days.

However, you are an admitted single purpose account with the aim of achieving equal representation for Indigenous place names, and the entirety of your work here has been to that end. When I pointed out that your edits didn't comply with Wikiprocedure, and that perhaps you should seek advice and consensus, then instead of that, you insisted that a few good sources made up for any other shortcomings, like "Kamay" not actually being the common name for "Botany Bay", let alone having any official status in that regard. Please pardon my irritation.

As for the links posted above, I invite editors to inspect the context. For example I didn't brand your contributions as nonsense, I stated that the suggestion that pre-colonial Australians on the far side of the continent used the local name of "Gadi" for what would later become Sydney as nonsense. I don't get universal acclaim for wordplay and humour from even my friends, but they don't regard a personal anecdote about my confusion in a certain matter as a personal attack.

As for the more substantive points about removing your insertion of Bhundoo (Clyde River) and references to the Yuin nation, the first is as per WP:PLACE and WP:BRD, and the second is because claimed Indigenous nationhood isn't how Wikipedia describes places. The town is in New South Wales in the nation of Australia and saying anything else in an infobox or lede is something that needs to be settled at a far higher level than individual editors deciding that their deeply-held preference overrides all else. Removing the wording describing Clyde River as 'Yuin: "Deep Water"' is just common sense. The Clyde River was named after the Clyde in Scotland; it doesn't have any meaning in any local Indigenous tongue.

When I pointed out that…

The Australian register of place names contains Botany Bay, and not Kamay. Likewise the NSW register. You can hardly claim that Kamay is the common name if the official lists of place names don't include it. End of story.

…I expected some sort of dummy-spit. I guess that this is it.

I'm sorry that I've hurt your feelings. I'd rather all be happy in their work here. But Wikipedia is something that is often compiled by "difficult people" working long hours and having to co-operate with others who may have opposing and equally deeply-held views. The policies and guidelines that have been built up over the years by the community work, and work surprisingly well. We have articles on religion and politics and sports that have found acceptable wording without loss of life.

Your expertise and zeal is welcome here. We need clever people who know their stuff and are willing to share. Just go along with the rules, okay? --Pete (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I wasn’t going to bother responding because like I said I feel certain behaviour has been very unpleasant and I don’t want to be involved in that situation, however I will acknowledge that it appears you have attempted to respond to some of my concerns and I thank you for making that effort.

There are a few problematic points which haven’t been addressed, I’ll do that now.

Acknowledging someone’s knowledge of their niche interest is all well and good, but removing any mention of that knowledge (even when it wasn’t posted by that person) and not attempting to discuss and learn from that knowledge, and not working together to find a way that the knowledge can be valuably included - instead just shutting it down - defeats the purpose of acknowledging it. It indicates that the knowledge is not welcome here.

I’ve now been misrepresented on several occasions to be a ‘single purpose account’ and claimed that I have admitted that, when I have done no such thing, nor is it true - and I have explained how.

As I explained, just because someone has an interest and that interest is their “main focus” does not mean it is their “only” focus, or their only interest. It literally indicates the opposite, that there are ‘’other focuses’’ too.

My purpose is not “equal representation of Indigenous place names”, while it is an interpretation, it’s a very narrow interpretation of what I have written, and one that indicates that my purpose has not been understood. Perhaps that there isn’t an expectation of substance beyond that narrow interpretation.

I state clearly that my purpose, “my goal” - “is to improve Indigenous representation” - Indigenous representation is not a single issue with limited substance. It is involved in every facet of society and how Indigenous peoples interact with the world around us, from education, to health, to racism, to truth telling in history, to communication, to arts, laws & customs, and so on.

I then go on to state on my user page that “one of the easiest ways to do this”, to improve Indigenous representation, is place names - note that “one of” does not mean, ‘’the only way’’; it means there are ‘’other ways’’ too, and that this is one of them; and that it is easy. It is not an exhaustive list, nor does it scrape the surface of the rich culture and perspective that sits alongside it.

You state “the entirety of your work here has been to that end” - that’s not true.

In my initial contributions to this specific article, I began including information on past struggles at the time (including wars & cultural suppression) - In line with WP:BOLD, I attempted to contribute in a way that wasn’t solely on place names, and that contribution was shut down & rejected because “we do not include every event” - that contribution could have been an opportunity for discussion and working together to find a way it, or something similar, could be included, rather than shut down abruptly, losing that opportunity altogether.

On other articles, I contributed information on emergency services at an airport, and information on a significant bushfire and recent events elsewhere. I note that these are not single purpose limited to place names, and should indicate a greater purpose in my contributions.

I created an account to contribute a few days ago... like sheesh, give me a chance to get to other topics before prematurely judging me, and then following that judgement up with accusations of not appreciating rules and being disruptive, based on that hasty judgement.

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS says a disruptive editor:

Continues editing articles despite opposition - Yet I made my contribution, it was reverted by you, labelled a fringe theory, with no attempt to engage in discussion until prompted by Errantius, and rather than continuing to edit despite your opposition, instead I have attempted to engage in a discussion to find a way that we could come together and include my contribution in some form; and even in compromise when I reduced my contribution to one single place name, that has been simply rejected with no attempt on the rejecting side to build upon my suggestion, to work together - the entirety of what I have suggested, my knowledge & input, thrown out & effectively deemed unwelcome here.

Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability - Yet I have tried to find credible sources time and time again, and indeed you acknowledged that the sourcing was acceptable. While claims that were used to disregard my input basically had the effect of ‘I doubt that, find me a source - but I wont find a source that verifies my doubt in return, it’s all on you’; no source provided for the opposing claim, or when one was, it was out of date (from 2012) despite my numerous different current sources indicating use of the exact same term, such as the National Museum of Australia, NSW Department of Education, Cambridge University and so on - but the one that was out of date, while credible in 2012, somehow trumped the numerous credible sources published after 2012, that indicated current use in the present, to throw them out as meaningless. I can’t wrap my head around how that is fair or an attempt to work together to build upon the input.

Does not engage in consensus building - Yet as I have explained here, I have attempted (exhaustively) to engage in constructive discussion, to work together, to find a way we can include my input; and blocked at every turn, made to justify each new requirement that appeared after the previous had been. In the end, my attempts to engage in consensus building were shut down "end of story"

Rejects or ignores community input - Yet, time and time again I have tried to meet your requests for sources and to relate my input to yours. Only to be shut down "end of story"

I note that in responding to my ‘substantive points’, there is no mention regarding the complete removal of content (Etymology) that I had reformatted, but didn't even write - I note that it is content that has existed, unopposed across 45+ revisions of the article since 2013, for 8 years now, and appears to be in the correct location - I can’t for the life of me figure out how that action can even be justified without the assumption that it is a misguided attack towards my ‘’alleged single purpose’’ (that has been incorrectly & unfairly judged) in an attempt to discourage me from editing by removing something that appeared to be part of my ‘’alleged single purpose’’ - or, an attempt to teach me a lesson on what content I can contribute - that’s how it comes across to me.

Given that “Yuin: “Deep Water”” is obviously related to the Indigenous name for the river, “Bhundoo”, I don’t believe that removal is common sense. Common sense would be to either discuss the content that had existed since 2016, for 5 years, unopposed across 28+ revisions of the article, and work with others to improve & build upon that input, or move it to the Etymology section. I believe WP:PARTR would apply here, not the originally suggested ‘’common sense’’.

You say: “I expected some sort of dummy-spit.” - If you expect this...

Why antagonise or push for it?
Why not reconsider the way you phrase things to be more civil to encourage collaboration?
Why not try to find common ground so that you can work together?
Why not try to understand the deeper substance behind my intentions and purpose for contributing?

If you expect it, you have some level of responsibility for it.

It’s also inflammatory and highly disrespectful to call my concerns “some sort of dummy-spit”. I have no other words for that.

You say: “Just go along with the rules, okay?” - Honestly, sometimes it can be good to take a moment to sit back and reflect within, to evaluate ourselves. I have tried to show that I am going along with the rules as I become aware of them, including throughout my “dummy spit” ‘’(1.D.)’’ - I think that we all could take that moment to reflect within.

If you’d “rather we all be happy here” - then I offer you the opportunity to reconsider your hasty judgement on my ‘single purpose’, to take the time to learn about my interests and my goal for Indigenous representation across the entirety of its rich cultural substance and how it is interweaved throughout all sections of society. Learn and find ways to incorporate that knowledge in your own contributions so that we can build upon each other’s knowledge.

One suggestion I have, to challenge one of the beliefs you have previously expressed in a response - I challenge you to consider truly taking the time to really learn about and appreciate the depth of the Indigenous relationship with place and country, the attachment or affinity to our souls & what is felt in our spirit that ‘’that’’ relationship forms, and the variations & consistencies between nations.

You stated: “Hobart itself was nothing special before Europeans arrived.” - I completely disagree and you wouldn’t say that if you understood why I disagree.

This is a pretty good starting point and well worth looking through, in place of a good book, on a comfortable chair with that cinnamon coffee beside you, that you mentioned previously.

GadigalGuy (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding removal of content (Etymology):

The statement that was removed was "The river is known as Bhundoo to the Yuin ... particularly the ... Walbunja ... from this region." That sentence does not belong in the Etymology section because it does not describe the etymology of either Clyde River or Bhundoo, i.e. it does not tell us the history or origin of the word(s). If you can find a reference that says why the Yuin called it Bhundoo, then it might be reasonable to include that - e.g. The Yuin name for the river, Bhundoo, means "place where the bunyips defecate". There are precedents for including the meaning of an Indigenous name, e.g. Rottnest_Island#Pre-Colonial_history, Heirisson Island, Wireless_Hill_Park#Indigenous_heritage. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that the reference actually needs to include the meaning, not just the name... [1]. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Etymology is the study of the history and meaning of words. Or in this case, place names. I love this sort of stuff. If they had a Sanskrit module in Duolingo, I'd be onto that like a shot.

But it's not for everyone. This is one area, Gadigalguy where you could really shine. Not to the extent of replacing modern English names with Indigenous names in some sort of ideological crusade, but in presenting the older or alternative local names and giving their traditional meanings or origins, which would necessarily shed some light on the place itself. I imagine that there are vast numbers of our Australian place articles which do not have any reference to a pre-existing or alternative name or its meaning, and that is something that could really help everyone by filling in those gaps in our coverage. --Pete (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete, you say: "Or in this case, place names. I love this sort of stuff." - I don't know if you realise what you've just said, but... you've identified common ground. Why don't we work together on that and build upon each others knowledge rather than destroying each others input? You seem to be pretty interested in the modern English names, I'm interested in the Indigenous names, surely there's a way we can come together to put that information into articles like this one...

This (Mitch's response just above) is the sort of discussion that I'm pretty sure Wikipedia intended on for these talk pages, not to simply remove, reject and oppose, but to constructively talk about things in ways that allow us to collectively figure out how to include the information, together. I'd suggest that this method is far more constructive and pleasant, and won't make newcomers like myself feel unwelcome or like our time is being wasted (right now with this discussion, I feel like we are getting somewhere, pleasantly, so my time isn't being wasted) - I'd also suggest this method improves on the neutrality of an article, as it presents a varied perspective rather than the one certain people agree with but others don't - we all benefit from collaboration first.

Mitch, you suggest: "e.g. The Yuin name for the river, Bhundoo, means "place where the bunyips defecate"." would be more suitable in the Etymology section, to make use of the information that was already there but incorrectly phrased. (Note: the meaning is presumably "Deep Water" as was listed on that page for 5 years, not "place where the bunyips defecate" but your point is just as important to what I'm getting at in my next sentence)

Wikipedia advises strongly against destroying content, literally stating that it is "the most important principle" and that efforts should be made to "continually improve rather than destroy", Mitch, you have just presented a way that specific content could have been rephrased to fit the Etymology section and remain on the page - so clearly it was not necessary to revert/remove the content, simply rephrase it and add a WP:CITENEED "citation required", or contact the person who wrote it in the first place as ask them about it, or post on the relevant talk page to suggest the best way to move forward in every effort to retain the information and improve upon it, rather than destroying it point-blank - based on Wikipedia's own guidelines the removal shouldn't have happened even though it wasn't perfect.

Prior to Mitch's explanation, it was clear the reason for reversion had not been described, simply putting "(As per WP:PLACE)" doesn't explain it, and I still firmly believe there was more to the motive because the behavioural evidence surrounding the entire situation shows as much, but we can move on from that and work together. WP:REVEXP talks about how this should be handled - even as a newcomer I can understand the reasoning behind good record keeping, in my job, detailed explanations of why things are done isn't just a thing to do, they play a role equally as vital as the job itself, perhaps more when accountability and, more importantly, understanding is factored in. I believe Wikipedia would have the same reasoning, to ensure that understanding & accountability, even in 20 years time, can be determined clearly.

WP:PARTR states: "If a good-faith edit which adds correct information that readers would find useful is wrong for other reasons, fix it. If a contribution is ungrammatical, improve the grammar, if a citation is incorrectly formatted, fix the format" and so on.

My interpretation of Wikipedia's intention for removal is: if something is informative in some way and could be seen as relevant, then it could be improved upon and as such should not be removed, every effort should be made to retain information - the guidelines literally say "if you don't have time to fix the problems, you can also just leave the article alone and let other editors, who presumably will notice the same problems, fix it.", the article doesn't need to be perfect, it can have information left there that needs correcting, and can be marked as such to ensure that it is corrected when someone has the time - rather than removed & destroyed, which goes against Wikipedias most important principle.

However, if something is clearly vandalism, for example swearing, defamatory claims against a celebrity, advertising a pyramid scheme, something that at its absolute most clearest is not a "good-faith edit which adds correct information that readers would find useful" but "is wrong for other reasons", then it would be a necessary removal - but in some cases we may need to sit on it for a day or a week and try to understand the intention behind the contribution before we act to fix it.

All that said, I think the civility topic is probably reasonably covered (I hope we agree, if not, please lets hash it out a bit more to ensure we are meeting in the middle fairly), we all should hopefully understand where we stand with it, and I hope we have all reflected and thought about how we can contribute collectively.

So, with that in mind, does anyone have a suggestion on how we can include Kamay (Botany Bay) and perhaps other information in this article? The National Museum of Australia and all those other current sources, dated as recent as a few months ago, concluded that it had a place in near-identical articles, so maybe they know something we don't...

GadigalGuy (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I had an interest in English place names so much as words amd languages in general. The picture tnat most interested me this morning was of a guy holding a copy of Elementarbuch der Sanskrit-Sprache, how nerdy is that? This is the English-language Wikipedia (one out of many covering various languages and cultures) and so English usage takes priority here unless the topic is specialised enough to warrant the use of other languages.

On that note, using an Indigenous place name here for a place that was better-known amongst English-speakers by its English name is unlikely to be appropriate. The contemporary records were all in English, because the locals didn't write things down. Any historical records we have and can use as sources are going to be written by the European colonisers and their descendants, in Eng;lish, using English names. --Pete (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh well, I'm clinging onto it as being some common ground between us haha. As for finding a way to include Kamay (Botany Bay), I'm now thinking more along the lines of where the article states:

"Sir Joseph Banks, the eminent scientist who had accompanied Lieutenant James Cook on his 1770 voyage, recommended Botany Bay as a suitable site."

Perhaps it could say:

"Sir Joseph Banks, the eminent scientist who had accompanied Lieutenant James Cook on his 1770 voyage, recommended Botany Bay as a suitable site, an area known to the local Indigenous people as "Kamay".^[1]"

I'd push my luck with a few other places too but I'll leave that for a few months down the track once the dust has settled. What are your thoughts on the way that is phrased above? It's not quite as overt/bold as the National Museum's usage but it still touches on it in a way that I think feels respectful. Would you make any changes to that new phrasing, present it in a different way etc etc?

GadigalGuy (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless there is some good reason to include the name in the history - and although it would be fabulous to have reports of the period from Indigenous sources, we don't - then the only sourcing we have is from Europeans, who were apparently unaware of any preëxisting local names. The Botany Bay article is the best place to talk about Indigenous naming, settlements, behaviour etc. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Rhetorical question for thought purposes only: Given that it obviously could come across as divisive to some people in society, would the National Museum of Australia and NSW State Library put some thought into, and/or, have a good reason to include "Kamay" in their clearly intentionally produced publications that talk about the exact same events as the section that I am referring to in this wikipedia article does?

Non-rhetorical question because I want your input: Ignoring any suggestions of relevance, reasoning and whatever else, is there any specific issue with the way I have phrased:

"Sir Joseph Banks, the eminent scientist who had accompanied Lieutenant James Cook on his 1770 voyage, recommended Botany Bay as a suitable site, an area known to the local Indigenous people as "Kamay".^[2]"

Reasoning:

As I previously mentioned, it's not quite as overt/bold as the National Museum's usage, and indeed the NSW State Library's too which is even stronger (27 references to Kamay vs 10 to Botany Bay), but it still touches on their usage in a way that I think goes some way to achieving the WP:NPOV.

In talking about where James Cook arrived (ie. Botany Bay):

This article says: "Sir Joseph Banks, the eminent scientist who had accompanied Lieutenant James Cook on his 1770 voyage, recommended Botany Bay as a suitable site."
The National Museum's publication says: "It was at Kamay (Botany Bay) that James Cook first set foot on the Australian continent."
The NSW State Library's publication says: "On 29 April 1770, the Gweagal people of Kamay (Botany Bay) discovered James Cook and his crew as they sailed into the bay and came ashore."

When it comes to due/undue weight, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" - The National Museum of Australia & NSW State Library have prominence through the fact they are "likely to attract attention from its size or position".

I'd find it hard to justify that a museum with as much significance as the National Museum of Australia whose own Director is literally appointed by Australia's Head of State, would not be considered a 'prominent' & 'reliable source' on a view, and that view not be considered 'significant'.

Same too with the oldest library in the country, it would surprise me if either of those were not considered 'significant', 'prominent' or 'reliable' on the view they both share.

Therefore, is a view that is shared by two very prominent historical/record keeping agencies, a view that both have intentionally published, not a significant view?

This current article has zero references to Kamay despite those publications having a 1:1 & 2.7:1 ratio across their entirety, so it can't possibly respect WP:NPOV's desire to "represent...all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." if it doesn't have one single representation when literally the National Museum of Australia and NSW State Library have those ratios in such a strong way.

Wikipedia describes the policy as: "NPOV policy means presenting all significant points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past, and not only points of view you share, but also points of view with which you disagree." - how can an article which presents zero references to that significant view whilst discussing the same topic be considered neutral?

I accept & acknowledge that WP:PLACE was a previously valid concern, which is why I have put the thought into the phrasing of that sentence that I have now suggested, so that it takes into consideration that concern with WP:PLACE, and instead of changing the place name as the other reliable sources do, it simply respects Wikipedia's guideline, while also introducing the significant view for the first time in the article, through a simple description, to adhere to WP:NPOV too and present what other prominent sources consider to be useful information, at least once.

My concern now though is that it's starting to get into subjective opinion territory again, but you know that I'm trying to contribute to this article in a positive way, I don't want to detract from it.

Ideology aside & an attempt to be as objective as possible: it's just that when I read the "History of Australia" and see an obvious departure & complete omission from what a bunch of prominent sources say on the exact same topic, I don't think its a stretch to think that something isn't right here, and now that I'm more familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines, I see that it doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV - and if one 10-word addition helps rectify that, then... for me, I think that's a good enough reason.

And the fact that I have put in so much time, effort & research into what is now 10-words on an article that probably doesn't get read often or in deep scrutiny, is borderline crazy. Please can I have this one contribution now. Please...

GadigalGuy (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The National Museum of Australia, along with every other organisation in the world apart from Wikipedia, does not have the same rules regarding content and procedure as Wikipedia. They can write whatever they like, however they like.

WP:PLACE applies. We use modern English place names, apart from certain articles and themes, as noted there. Banks named the place Botany Bay and that promptly went into the log, onto the maps, into the official reports and then into the common English of the time, and when the First Fleet arrived eighteen years later, they were bound for Botany Bay. Kamay does not feature at all. Nobody was telling the story form the other side in 1770. Nobody bothered to record the Indigenous name. Indeed, there doesn't appear to have been much interaction between the locals and the visitors at all. Why should we anachronistically insert a detail that wasn't known at the time, when there doesn't seem to be any reason to do so? --Pete (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Two steps forward, one step back...

Skyring/Pete, you say: "there doesn't seem to be any reason to do so?" - I've already answered that, but I'll rephrase and highlight the key reasons below.

Yes, and The National Museum of Australia, NSW State Library and every other prominent credible source which share the exact same view as one another, fit the definition of a "significant point of view", especially when it is a united view on the exact topic that this wikipedia article contains, as I have explained categorically above.

However, this article completely omits that significant view that is published by those prominent sources, which means this article does not currently align with the WP:NPOV and as such, should be addressed to rectify that.

Wikipedia clearly states: "NPOV policy means presenting all significant points of view" and then goes on to say "This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past, and not only points of view you share, but also points of view with which you disagree." <- This policy is the reason to insert that detail that wasn't known at the time because that detail is known today - and - it is part of the "significant points of view" of "different groups today". "NPOV policy means presenting all significant points of view".

WP:PLACE no longer applies - I have explained why it does not above, but to reiterate, the way in which I have thoughtfully crafted the updated sentence ensures that WP:PLACE is respected by completely leaving the place name alone, untouched, and the new information is separate and yet still kept relevant to both the specific topic matter contained in the article and significant point of view on that very same topic matter that is currently presented zero times in the article despite being published in & by several high profile sources elsewhere, and as such wikipedias guidelines literally give the reason why it should be presented at the very least, one single time to present that significant point of view.

I personally want to follow Wikipedias guidelines, so I believe that they should be respected & upheld through the inclusion of the updated sentence.

Assuming good faith, I don't want to assume you have intentionally ignored most of what I wrote in that last contribution, but the part I'm wanting to know most about was definitely not responded to, so I will ask again:

Non-rhetorical question because I want your input: Ignoring any suggestions of relevance, reasoning and whatever else, is there any specific issue with the way I have phrased:

"Sir Joseph Banks, the eminent scientist who had accompanied Lieutenant James Cook on his 1770 voyage, recommended Botany Bay as a suitable site, an area known to the local Indigenous people as "Kamay".^[3]"

A simple "No its fine" or "Yes, here is a different way of wording it..." is what I'm looking for, so I can determine if it is a suitable way to include the information literally anywhere (it's mostly the formatting I'm thinking about, but any other advice is welcome provided it isn't a repetition of WP:PLACE or 'no reason to include it' - because those don't actually constructively contribute anything towards answering this specific question).

And lastly, Skyring/Pete, you say: "Indeed, there doesn't appear to have been much interaction between the locals and the visitors at all." - I'd challenge you to find a source that backs up that claim, but given the copious amounts of evidence that states otherwise, for example the Notebooks of William Dawes, I'd expect it would be a... quite a challenge.

"Some of the officials of the early European settlement, such as Captain Watkin Tench and Judge Advocate David Collins, took an active interest in Aboriginal customs and welfare and were aware of the effects of colonisation and settlement." "There were many violent acts of resistance" - Anita Heiss

GadigalGuy (talk) 08:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I read your contributions, but the points you make don't address the issues. William Dawes was eight years old when Joseph Banks named the place Botany Bay. He didn't turn up until the First Fleet, which sailed in response to the prior recommendation of Banks.

Your wording is not acceptable. It violates WP:PLACE, where we use the modern English name. What the locals called Botany Bay was entirely irrelevant to Banks' recommendation. You want to add an irrelevant detail, one that already exists in its proper place in context and greater detail in our Botany Bay article, which of course should be wikilinked at its first appearance in this article. Those who are interested in the names and local inhabitants at the time of Banks' visit can find better information only a click away. That's how Wikipedia works, through hypertext, to present as much information as we can through chains of relevance. --Pete (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on Skyring's opinion that the mention of Kamay by GadigalGuy is an irrelevant detail, just because it exists in another article. This article is about the history of first settlement, and it is relevant that the locals already had a name for Botany Bay - it is not irrelevant just because Banks was unaware of it. Interested readers can certainly find more detail by clicking on links, but most don't, and the inclusion of a small number of words expressing quite an important piece of history of the place is IMO perfectly justifiable. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

So you think WP:PLACE doesn't apply?

And exactly how is it relevant? Presumably every place in Australia had some pre-existing name at a greater or lesser level. We mention them all, whether or not the name had any part in the story? Banks apparently made his recommendation on the basis of landscape and botany, not the locals. --Pete (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look through WP:PLACE, but it appears to be mostly focused on articles about places, rather than mentions of places in other contexts - I can't find a specific sentence, for example, that I could quote either for or against GadigalGuy's proposal. But looking specifically at the proposed sentence change,

Sir Joseph Banks, the eminent scientist who had accompanied Lieutenant James Cook on his 1770 voyage, recommended Botany Bay as a suitable site, an area known to the local Indigenous people as "Kamay".

in the context of the existing article/section, the extra text appears to be completely out of place. There's no other mention in that section of the local people at all - in fact that sentence appears in a paragraph whose context is well before they went to Australia, so the mention of the locals seems particularly incongruous. At the very least, you'd need to mention the Indigenous name in context with local people. Eg at the point in the text where they landed, mention the local people and their name for the place - but even if you mentioned the people, I'm finding it hard to come up with a way of mentioning the local place in a way that fits into the flow of the text. I'd be inclined not to include the Indigenous name in History of Australia (1788–1850), but put it in Botany Bay instead, where it would be appropriate. A search through Botany Bay finds that the Aboriginal name for the bay (not the National Park) is only mentioned explicitly once, and then only parenthetically at the start. Perhaps it would be better instead to add a full sentence to Botany_Bay#Aboriginal_history, along the lines of "The Aboriginal people called the bay Kamay". However I note that "The Aboriginal people of Sydney were known as the Eora, with sub-groups derived from the languages they spoke", so we'd need to state explicitly which language Kamay was, or whether the same name was shared across multiple languages. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

References

On slavery

A user removed a point in the lead mentioning slavery. As it isn't further discussed in the article at the moment I'll leave that as is, however it is inaccurate to say that slavery was not practiced during the colonial period. As per Slavery in Australia and there is potential to flesh that part of the article out. Poketama (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Port Jackson in the Eora Nation

Looking at this edit:

the arrival in 1788 of the First Fleet of British ships at Port Jackson in the Eora Nation

The first paragraph of the lede deals with the arrival of the British. The phrase "Eora Nation" would not have been used at all in the time period covered by the article (1788-1850). Not by the British, not by the original inhabitants or their descendants.

The second para is fine.

We have a section devoted to the devastating impact of the British on the first Australians. We have plenty of sources for the dispossessions, massacres, plagues and so on. If Indigenous placenames are to be used, that section would be a good place to use them, as a counterpoint to the largely White Anglo narrative. The difficulty is finding Indigenous sources for the events of this period. --Pete (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep rehashing this issue Pete. Quote Wikipolicy if you want to remove content. The page does not need to only use language from the 16th century. Poketama (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

16th century??? You sure you are feeling up to editing historical articles? Reliable sourcing is one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia and if you can find any credible historian or contemporary source using the phrase "Port Jackson in the Eora Nation", please let us know. --Pete (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.icsm.gov.au/sites/default/files/aboriginal_names_0.pdf

[2] ttps://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/un-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples-1

[3] ttps://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/history/aboriginal-histories

[4] ttps://australian.museum/blog/at-the-museum/learning-language-in-gadi/

[5] ttps://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/endeavour-voyage/kamay-botany-bay

[6] ttps://sydneylivingmuseums.com.au/convict-sydney/warrane-sydney-cove

[7] ttps://australian.museum/blog/at-the-museum/learning-language-in-gadi/

[8] ttps://www.dbca.wa.gov.au/expression-of-interest

[9] ttps://australian.museum/blog/at-the-museum/learning-language-in-gadi/

[10] ttps://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/endeavour-voyage/kamay-botany-bay

[11] ttps://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/endeavour-voyage/kamay-botany-bay

[12] ttps://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/endeavour-voyage/kamay-botany-bay

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]