Talk:Ngambri

Australia: Canberra / Indigenous peoples Low‑importance

	Australia portal Ngambri is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canberra (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Inserted info

I have added some of this information back into the article. Please feel free to edit the article further. -- Astrokey44|talk 02:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is the article about the locality or the people

The recently inserted first paragraph of the article says "Ngambri was ... a locality ... The area ... ", ie it defines and describes an area of land, however much of the rest of the article (including the infobox) is about the people. Is the article about the land, or the people, or both? The lead section should be a littler clearer on this - in particular the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised this was never fixed, will give it a go. Poketama (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it up but there's a lot of dubious (citation needed) information in there because this is quite a complicated topic and I don't have time or knowledge to vet it. Poketama (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ngambri. 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) 06:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not trustworthy

This article is confused because it seeks to established at the outset a distinct people whose independent historicity is not ascertain(able). It is caught up in the crossfire between imprecise historic data and the various hypotheses generated, and the recent land claims of several families Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Government acknowledgement of Ngambri

I understand that this issue is very contested. Just thought I would share this newest information of the ACT government apologising for excluding Ngambri people. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-27/act-government-apologises-to-ngambri-over-indigenous-protocol/102274536 Poketama (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary information in introduction

I don't think its necessary to go into so much detail about the contested land claims in the introduction. It is not general information and only introduces a single segment of the page. Yainsley (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it's necessary to make both Ngunnawal and Ngambri pages describe each people in a similar fashion to other pages for indigenous groups -- i.e. with much less focus on the land dispute. There would be a section on each page regarding the dispute, briefly describing and linking to separate page dedicated to it. I think it is important that Wikipedia does not present biased views for either side and thus drive further this conflict. @Laterthanyouthink, @Poketama, @Nishidani, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Yainsley (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be dialed back a bit. Poketama (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that some of the detail could come out of the lead of this one, and that the issue should be covered the Ngunnawal article in similar fashion, for consistency. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]