This is an archive of past discussions about Sydney. 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.
Aboriginal names describing a region are not applicable when used in conjunction with sydney, which is a city. A city is: "an inhabited place of greater size, population, or importance than a town or village." notice the definition changes due to the amount of infrastructure/buildings/population etc when compared to a village or town. A city is not defined by a region name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.1.85 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
You must be new here - Wikipedia has guidelines which allow for Alternative Names with specific reference to 'historical names, and significant names in other languages', the guidelines do not differentiate article naming conventions in the way you suggest - while that may be a relevant definition outside of Wikipedia, a population definition does not apply here. The names you are referring to are correct within Wikipedia's guidelines, not only are they formatted correctly as per Wikipedia's guidelines (eg. in parenthesis, specifying the known & cited historical language and no more than two alternate names), they also present a Neutral Point of View and satisfy Verifiability as they are sourced correctly with historical and reliable sources (literally journal entries from historical explorers). The Alternative Names should not be removed as they are correctly used under Wikipedia's guidelines. Edit warring is however against the policies, please refrain from doing so as there are penalties as listed on the Edit warring policy page. GadigalGuy (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The first reference for Gadi (number 5) is a special interests website and is clearly incorrect (it claims that Sydney was Gadi before it was called Sydney, with one of the main incompatibilities being that Sydney did not exist before it was called Sydney). The second reference does not mention 'Gadi'. Please provide appropriate references for the use of Gadi as an alternative name in full compliance with Wikipedia rules, or remove your entry of Gadi in the fist sentence of the lead. Simulaun (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The location that Sydney (city) and Greater Sydney now sits on has historical names which are still, today, used to refer to the exact same locations, people have lived on this exact same land regardless of when it was given the name 'Sydney', therefore they are valid Alternative (Historical) Names. It is a bit rich to call The Australian Museum a special interests website that is "clearly incorrect" about history when they are literally a leading national historical archive. The second reference also actually does mention Gadi in the physical book provided by the National Library of Australia. Please stop edit-warring to remove Indigenous place names.
Also I notice that your edit summaries have suggested that Gadi only refers to Watsons Bay, that shows a clear lack of understanding of the Dharug language. As such, I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify this: I am a Gadigal person, which in Dharug literally translates to 'Man of Gadi', Gadi being the place. I am from Gadi, however I am not from Watsons Bay because Gadigal Country (Gadi) is significantly larger than a landmark. Gadi comprises of the majority of the 'Sydney' inner-east, including the geographical centre of 'Sydney', hence why Sydney is also known as Gadi. GadigalGuy (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Please clarify the following:
Gadi versus Cadi (as on my map of Eora, Gadi=Watsons Bay)
If Gadi comprises the majority of Sydney inner-east, then how can it also equate to the remainder of the Sydney area?
Gadi vs Cadi is just a language interpretation thing due to transcribing a foreign language into English based on the sounds. Kind of like if you heard a French person saying 'Kwa-son' and tried to write it down based on what you heard, to a foreigner it would then be spelt 'Kwa-son', to a local it's spelt 'Croissant'. My fam and people we know have always used a G 'Ga' sound, not a C 'Ka', I actually don't remember ever hearing anyone use a C sound but obviously some people do.
As mentioned with the Dharug language, and I'll expand on the previous comment, -gal means 'man of' so Gadigal is Man of Gadi, Burramattagal is Man of Burramatta (Parramatta) and so on - it's referring to a country not a landmark. So there's no if it comprises of the majority of the inner-east, it does - otherwise I wouldn't be Gadigal, I would be something else.
Sydney in English doesn't even technically refer to the remainder of the Sydney area, that's what Greater Sydney (Eora) is for. The city (centred on the CBD) is called Sydney, which is part of the area known as Gadi. You can even drive down some main roads in Sydney which say 'Sydney x km' while still in the suburbs for example, which is obviously within the remainder of the Sydney area so Sydney doesn't refer to the remainder, the area those signs refer to is part of Gadi.
Even members of the First Fleet acknowledged and recorded it being called Gadi... but also, it's clear you're trying to angle your argument based on semantics, both that Sydney refers to the commune established by the Europeans in 1788 and not the area/location (as though my ancestors were not part of a community in the exact same location), while you also try to argue that it is the whole area/location outside of Gadigal Country in the sentence immediately preceding - Keep in mind, that broader area was not colonised immediately, and also was not part of the 1788 establishment, and as suburbia expanded still was not called Sydney even by the Europeans, the locations were given different names, for example Parramatta (derived from the Indigenous Burramatta).GadigalGuy (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Most if not all of what you state appears to be incorrect.
I have maps and documents pertaining to Eora generated by First Nations people that show and explain that Gadi=Watsons Bay and not Cadi (so this can be considered to be a documented fact promoted by First Nation peoples/Cadigal rather than (mis)interpretation from translation into English, as you asserted).
Your statement that "the city (centered on the CBD) is called Sydney, which is part of the area known as Gadi" is at odds with your claim that this is/was "...the exact same location" (i.e., logic dictates that "part of" and "the exact same" are not the same).
You further claim that "...that broader area...still was not called Sydney", yet the first paragraph of the article states that "..Sydney is made up of 658 suburbs, spread across 33 local government areas". Simulaun (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Simulaun, I'm rather skeptical of your ability to locate and interpret reliable sources after your repeated attempts to insert the following text into this article:
In recent years, some groups have taken to referring to the Sydney conurbation as "Gadi", although this is a geographical location presently known as 'Watson Cove'.
I tagged these as weasel words ("In recent years", "some groups") and the claim that Gadi meant "Watson Cove" as [citation needed]. You then added some references: an article in The Guardian (that didn't mention Sydney at all) for the "recent years" claim, links to Network Ten and FIFA mentioning "Gadi" as the "some groups" claim, and no reference for the Watson Cove claim. I reverted your removal of the tags and gave you a week to find better references, which never appeared so I removed the sentence. I also figured if you did actually find a verifiable reference that Watsons Bay was called Gadi/Cadi/Kutti or some variation (like this one), that it would not actually confirm that this meant only Watsons Bay/Cove and no other location had or could possibly have the same name. Now you claim that your "maps and documents" do exactly this, and we're supposed to take your word for it? As referenced in the article Cadigal, Arthur Phillip in his letters to Lord Sydney said the following:[1]
From the entrance of the harbour, along the south shore, to the cove adjoining this settlement the district is called Cadi, and the tribe Cadigal ; the women, Cadigalleon.
That's the whole area from Watsons Bay to Darling Harbour. Looks like your "recent years" go back to 1790 and the "some groups" include Governor Arthur Phillip. --Canley (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Please note that, like the Wikipedia page in question, I am referring to 'Gadi' (first letter "G", as in 'golf'). You, on the other hand are appear to be referring to 'Cadi' (first letter "C", as in 'Charlie'). Simulaun (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Please note that the sentence by Arthur Philip that you quoted contradicts your conclusion, as Philip clearly distinguished between Sydney ('this settlement') and the district called Cadi. Simulaun (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Gadi and Cadi refer to the exact same country and everything I have said about my country is correct. As a Gadigal person, I can assure you I know my own mob and where I'm from better than a bunch of people who don't even have oral knowledge from elders, both in the basics of Dharug language but also our oral history.GadigalGuy (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh please, Simulaun, you know why Phillip calls it 'this settlement' don't you? Because the settlement didn't have the name Sydney then! Phillip named the inlet "Sydney Cove" after Lord Sydney in 1788, but the name wasn't applied to the settlement until later. (Oh goodness me, a place with the same name as a body of water? That's not possible!) So the settlement at Port Jackson had no "official" name, and was completely within what Phillip acknowledged as a district called Cadi (which is the same thing as Gadi but spelled differently, I can't believe you need this explained to you). --Canley (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Please note that the link you refer to appears to contradict your conclusion. The name 'Sydney' was assigned to the Colony/Settlement (not the Cadi district) on 7 February of 1788 (as stated in the Sydney Wikipedia page). Contrary to your assertion, however, your link to the historical records of New South Wales appears to show that on 13 February of 1790 (i.e. two years after it had been named 'Sydney') Phillip still referred to the Colony/Settlement as being distinct from the adjacent 'district called Cadi'.
Secondly, while there is much hearsay about 'Cadi' and 'Gadi' (and even 'Kuttie'), the available physical documentation of the Eora region indicates that 'Cadi' is quite distinct, both conceptually and geographically (as well as in terms of the first letter), from 'Gadi'.
Lastly, you are incorrect in saying that the place 'Sydney' has the same name as the body of water called 'Sydney Cove' as the latter name contains an additional word ('Cove') to indicate that it is a separate entity (and name). Simulaun (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. The "proclamation and naming of the colony" on 7 February 1788 (mentioned in the Sydney article) was not 'Sydney' at all, it was the Colony of New South Wales (7 Feb 1788 - Colony of NSW formally proclaimed). What "physical documentation"? Is this the map you claim to have that no-one has seen? That's hearsay if anything is! And the settlement that became Sydney was completely within the Cadi district, from Watson's Bay to "the cove adjourning this settlement" (Darling Harbour) – the adjourning settlement was east of the cove and completely within that district. --Canley (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Here's an academic article which contains a 1792 map titled "Survey of the Settlement of New South Wales, New Holland" – other than the label of Sydney Cove, there is no mention of Sydney as the name of the settlement... four years after the arrival of the First Fleet. --Canley (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
A 1920 journal from the Royal Australian Historical Society by Maybanke Anderson: "Sydney, as we know, was never formally named, and many other less important places received a name as whim or accident arranged. Uncertainty as to the name of the city on Port Jackson must have continued for many years, for in Wells' Geographical Dictionary of 1848, Sydney is entered as Sydney (or Albion)." Phillip seems to have written the origin of at least one of his letters to Lord Grenville as "Sydney" in around mid-1790, after consistently using "Sydney Cove" earlier, although according to Anderson: "Phillip’s despatch of June 20, 1790, was addressed from “Sydney,” though his previous despatches had been from “Sydney Cove.” (The word “Cove” might have been accidentally omitted from the former.)" --Canley (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
So ample mention of 'Sydney' (and other non-aboriginal names) by its first inhabitants, while 'Gadi' is described as being something different and/or separate. Simulaun (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I entered template of 'Dubious span' to first sentence, after changes by some Aboriginal activists. After previous changes, in first sentence there are two Aboriginal names.
The first sentence of an article about a very important city in the world is not a place to list a few additional names used by the margins of society. If there are multiple names, move them to the History or Ethymology section.
There are also doubts about the use of the name of Eora (presumably for Greater Sydney), this name is a modern name, and this is not the place to use the names of a modern name by the margin of society, in the first sentence of an important article.
There are also doubts about the use of the two names to one things. Article is about Greater Sydney, if name of Eora is for Greater Sydney, we should only leave this one name. Name of 'Gabi" is name for "Sydney" but Sydney is a wildcard word. There is no doubt here. Aboriginal name must to be to the Greater Sydney and must comply with the article (article is about Greater Sydney). There are sources, where name of 'Gabi" is determined for City of Sydney. Such calcification and problems practically exclude the use of this name in the first sentence of the article of Greater Sydney, because it is a debatable issue.
Summary: I see a few problems with the editing by Aboriginal activists. These problems are so serious that I believe these two names should be moved to a different section. The first sentence is no place for controversial names. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)08:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Second case: there was a manipulation and violation of the principle of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by some users. If there are 20 sources: 10 sources who showing "Gabi" as area / region and 10 sources who showing "Gabi" as a city (City of Sydney or CBD), you are not allowed to choose just some sources that are in line with your point of view and you are not allowed to enter name of "Gabi" only as a Greater Sydney (in intro or/and infobox) relying only on the sources you choose, which are in line with your opinion. This is breach fundamental rules of Wikipedia, i.e. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If there are different sources, and only some of them describe the name "Gabi" as the Greater Sydney (Greater Capital City Statistical Area), it is too controversial and obscure to use the name in the intro or / and infobox in the article of the Greater Sydney. Intro or infobox is not a place for controversial and debatable things. The Etymology or History sections may be used to describe this name. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)08:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a bit hypocritical to call others "activists" when it seems to be only you and Simulaun who seem unable to accept any Indigenous Australian name for a city, that seems more like activism to me. At least you have about half your edits about other topics, Simulaun does nothing else. Your "if there are 20 sources" argument makes no sense: the name "Sydney" can refer to any number of different geographical entities, but the name "Gadi" cannot it can only be a city or a region but cannot be both, according to you it can only mean the "Sydney Greater Capital City Statistical Area" and if it doesn't, it cannot appear in the lede despite WP:ALTNAME and WP:NCPLACE being really clear that this completely acceptable. --Canley (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@Canley:, please quote the rules that you can use some of the sources that describe the name without the rest of the sources showing the name for another thing. There are many sources who name of "Gadi" link to Sydney CBD or/and City of Sydney. This is article about Greater Sydney. Sources indicate a serious problem. WP:ALTNAME/WP:NCPLACE does not take such cases. This is breach fundamental rules of Wikipedia, i.e. Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. If there are different sources, and only some of them describe the name "Gabi" as the Greater Sydney, other sources show as City of Sydney or/and Sydney CBD, the problem should be describe in the article in the section. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)10:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@Seasider53: - your edit is typical vandalism[2]. You can have your own opinion, but you have removed a correctly inserted template. There are guidelines that say that the template can only be removed after removing problems from the article. Your actions are destructive, breaking the rules of Wikipedia. Please withdraw your change. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)10:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@Subtropical-man: Let's not give people vandalism warnings on their talk page unnecessarily. It can be seen as attempting to suppress people into allowing your edit-warring to occur. I'm not the one who appears to be in danger of being blocked. Seasider53 (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@Seasider53: - You can have your own opinion, but you have removed a correctly inserted template. There are guidelines that say that the template can only be removed after removing problems from the article. Your actions are destructive, breaking the rules of Wikipedia. Again, please withdraw your change. If you don't do this within 4 next hours, I'll use the {POV} template in the article. At the moment, the article's intro breaks the POV rule. If there are different sources, and only some of them describe the name "Gabi" as the Greater Sydney, other sources show as City of Sydney or/and Sydney CBD, the problem should be describe in the article in the section without controversial entries in the first sentence of the article. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)10:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Is the 4 hours thing part of the template guidelines that are being invented? Just checking if I can ignore it more quickly. Seasider53 (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Seasider53, you can ignore it. Someone else can restore the template - the lesser evil. If not, in 4 hours I will insert the {POV} template into the article - and I have the right to do so. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is Wikipedia:Core content policies, who say: (...) "are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus". The article (including the intro) must meet these WP:NPOV rules, your opinion is not important here. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)10:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, it's Gadi, not Gabi. We've been over that many times before Subtropical-man. This article is 'Sydney', it appears to be a broad, generalised article on the metropolis that encompasses Sydney and Sydney - given that it quite literally says that. That metropolis depending on context can be accurately referred to as Sydney or Greater Sydney interchangeably, that's to say: Greater Sydney and Sydney are synonymous with one-another, this is not an article specifically for some specific variation of a name, therefore it is appropriate to provide both Indigenous names for Sydney and Greater Sydney in this article, no other article is appropriate for this specific context.
I am still waiting for an explanation as to why @Canley: and @Seasider53: removed correctly inserted template from article despite there being a few problems. Apart from personal attacks, they did not provide any arguments. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)10:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I did give an argument (and an edit comment, and many more above, and on the many talk pages on which you are also disputing these issues) but you ignored it. It's completely over-egging it to insist that your opinions are backed up by core content policies like WP:NPOV – this is a accuracy dispute, not a clear violation of any policy. The name has been there for two years, with a small number of editors insisting on removing it recently, and responding to every single opposing comment or argument – no-one (else) is confused, no-one is being misled, it's not an issue of bias or activism or vandalism – it's a concise and relevant piece of information, completely acceptable under the rules I mentioned earlier. Of course you can add templates, but I am also allowed to remove them if I have verified that the issues on the talk page have been addressed or are not substantive. I just don't see the point in raising another discussion when it's been discussed so often and so recently. I mean knock yourself out, add the POV template, but your opinions do not mean these templates are inviolable until your apparent desired goal of removing traditional names is achieved. I have to say, I am a little confused by your arguments: you state yourself that there are references that Gadi can refer to the Sydney CBD, the City of Sydney, or the Greater Sydney area, which would seem in aggregate to be sufficient to most, but because there is no single reference that it does and can mean all those things it's not neutral? And "used by the margins of society", yuck. And you keep saying "Gabi" not "Gadi", please, for someone supposedly concerned about accuracy... --Canley (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@Canley: Most of your comments on this matter are personal attacks. Please stop writing about my person and my alleged purpose. My goal is not to remove Aboriginal names from article as such, but only names that are highly questionable and only from first sentence of article. There are too many issues for the name of "Gadi" in the first sentence of this article. To describe the problem you used the word "accuracy". No, accuracy is not the problem here. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and sub-pages describe what to do when there are conflicting sources. Also please read: Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality. All versions (Greater Sydney, City of Sydney, Sydney CBD, other places) that have been supported by sources should be used, not just those advocating for aboriginal names to be included in Greater Sydney article. If a given name is controversial because it refers to many different things, it shouldn't be in the first sentence. My use of the template was correct and fully compliant with Wikipedia standards. The given sources are questioned and require more explanation in the article. At the moment, the use of several (chosen by one side!) sources describing the name as (Greater) Sydney is breaking the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, because it only shows one version of several. I am not interested in how many discussions there have been, you have a duty to act according to Wikipedia rules. You can't - then go away. You don't want to solve problems but sweep them under the rug - go away. As a reminder of permissions, you are required not only not to break the rules, but to respect and defend Wikipedia's rules. Your comments using personal attacks are unacceptable. But your destructive editing even more so. Even your opinion of "accuracy" does not solve the problem, and you have deleted the correctly inserted template?!? Even if you name it differently, the problem exists. I know you want peace of mind, you don't have to be here. The problem exists and must be removed from this article. You wasted a lot of time writing about me and did not give any arguments or ideas. Only what you did creatively - you used a different name for the problem. Before I put the {POV} template into the article, I hope there are some ideas or willingness to solve the sources' problem. My idea is: transfer information to Etymology or History section, use other sources according to NPOV (for City of Sydney, Sydney CBD and other places). This is a compromise: there will be no controversial and debatable names in the first sentence of the article but in the main article there will be exact information about this, even a paragraph about it. I think it's a good compromise and 100% in line with Wikipedia rules. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)13:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
It's not personal attacks, it's writing (yes, perhaps critically) about your edits and comments, your pattern of editing, your calling other editors vandals, activists, destructive and non-neutral for disagreeing with your opinions or reverting your edits, and claiming a moral high ground as if "the rules" support your position alone. Apologies if I've misconstrued your motive, but how have I broken any rules? – I guess you think personal attacks but I can't see how I've not "commented on the content, not the contributor" or anything listed at WP:WIAPA. --Canley (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@Canley: Again, again, again. I am quoting: "about your edits and comments, your pattern of editing, your calling other editors vandals, activists, destructive and non-neutral for disagreeing with your opinions" etc. Dear Canley. You have no right to judge my opinions or edits if they do not violate Wikipedia rules. Do not write nonsense like "non-neutral for disagreeing with your opinions" because the same can be written about you and any other user with a different opinion. I have not called anyone a vandal - next your lie. The only thing I did wrong is I used the word "activists". The rest of your text is lies, slanders and manipulations. About you and yours behaving too, we can write a whole eleborat, also we can use manipulation, speculations and lies like you. Besides, this is not a place to write elaborates about another user - so, please stop writting about me in this discuss because this is article talk page. You write about me in practically all your comments. This is typycal Wikipedia:Harassment, please stop it now! If you have any suggestions about my behavior, please write in my user talk page. Let's go back to the discussion about the article here. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)14:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The citations provided in the article (#6 and 7) are woefully inadequate to support the contention that Sydney used to be called Gadi.
If information is to be displayed in the first sentence or lead, it needs to be correct and verifiable. Neither of these criteria apply to 'Gadi'. Unless this purported 'alternative name' can be substantiated by credible sources, it warrants being moved to a footnote or deleted altogether. Simulaun (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Simulaun, you literally just tried to use a wordpress blog as a source. 6 & 7 are literally the Australian Museum, ie. the peak national organisation for historical archives, and a journal article from the First Fleet, held by the National Library of Australia, ie. the peak national organisation for recorded literature. It doesn’t get much more credible than that. Is this some kind of trolling joke? GadigalGuy (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I was unable to get any relevant information from citation 7 other that it is a book available (but apparently not online) at the National Library of Australia. I am, however, amenable to perusing the relevant pages in this book if you/someone would let me know how to access this item online. Nonetheless, in my opinion, the apparent unavailability online of the book/pages in question makes it quite unsuitable as a citation for such a contentious claim that really warrants a significant degree of scrutiny by a diversity of WP users.
Citation #6 is particularly/woefully lacking in my opinion. The first sentence is 'Sydney is built upon some of the oldest occupied territory in the world'. As Homo sapiens has occupied the Middle East and NE Africa for approximately 150,000 and 300,000 years, respectively, this first sentence strikes me as profoundly incorrect. The second sentence appears equally ill considered: 'Before it was named Sydney it was called Gadi'. While there is some ambiguity in how this should be interpreted (e.g., Sydney was called Gadi before it was called Sydney, or the '(not) some of the oldest occupied territory in the world was called Gadi before it was called Sydney'). Either interpretation is reason to believe that this is profoundly unreliable information (despite the Australian Museum origin). Further, as no substantiating evidence or documentation is provided, this citation, which is perhaps little more than opinion or fantasy, strikes me as entirely unsuitable for the purpose it is being used for on the Sydney WP page. Simulaun (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a problem with this particular topic. The best sources, by their very nature, are not likely to be online. In fact, recent online sources are unreliable in that we have to ask, just where did they get this information from? The name of a place isn't like its height or its latitude or longitude or climate. We can't just go and check for ourselves what the name was centuries ago. We must depend upon the records available. The best we can hope for is that someone who understood the local language wrote it down and left notes explaining why it referred to that specific place and was actually the name, rather than words meaning (say) "Ah, that's a big rock, idiot tourist." A map drawn by an early explorer showing the course of a river or the outline of a bay or cape with the local name is very helpful.
What would have been perfect is to have had the locals draw maps or have a body of literature listing place names but they didn't swing that way so we have to solve the puzzle ourselves, and as I keep on poining out we must do it through the lens of British colonialists who often had scant regard for the quaint languages and culture of the locals who had been around for thousands of years and presumably had names for the places that the new arrivals called "Frank's Head" or "Scrubby Creek".
Having a linguist interpret names would also be handy. The earliest British people drawing maps and describing the land tended to be military officers. Great at navigation, not so great at languages. "What's this river called?" "Deep water." "What about this other river?" "Deep water." "Good, what about this bay?" "Really deep water." So when we see an Indigenous river name meaning "deep water" was that really its name or just the local equivalent of "Rocky Knoll" or "Snowy Mountains", the sort of names the early mapmakers sprinkled the landscape with? All very confusing, really, and I do wonder about the trust some people place in a webpage put up by the town council or whatever. --Pete (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Attempts to include names disregarding discussion & policies
I'm not much interested in reading the discussion above but please refrain from making edits pertaining to the issue while there is an ongoing discussion.
I will note that, as far as I can see, none of these names for Sydney are common and hence should not be used in infoboxes nor bolded which goes against MOS:BOLDLEAD. Names ought only to be in bold if they are "formal or widely accepted". They are already included in the first sentence in proper formatting, alongside their language group and italicised. WP:Activist – which I was not aware of until today – may also warrant consideration here. I apologise as I am likely raising points that have already been considered in the above discussion but I wish to express them should they have been disregarded as I find the above discussion somewhat confronting in its size. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Your argument hinges on the interpretation of the word 'significant' in MOS:BOLDALTNAMES which is a whole can of worms. But yeah fair enough the discussion hasn't been formally closed yet. Poketama (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I mistakenly reverted a reversion by another editor thinking the initial reversion was an addition, so I was fairly misguided when I made that initial statement about adding names before the conclusion of the discussion I’m afraid. thorpewilliam (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Pissing on the treeWhat is significant to an activist - and Poketama's SPA campaign has been the subject of criticism elsewhere - is not necessarily notable in the wider world. My rule of thumb is that Indigenous place names, well-sourced and researched, are most welcome in the history section of an article, but are of limited importance elsewhere. By and large we do not give much prominence to previous spellings or names in the lede. New York City's previous name of New Amsterdam gets a mention in the third paragraph. Canberra's previous name of Limestone Plains is in the history section. Darwin's old name of Palmerston is mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the lede.
Activism is what is happening here and it is not a useful strategy for building an encyclopaedia. I have seen previous campaigns where some municipality or organisation wishes to increase its presence on the net and inserts as many references as possible into Wikipedia articles, all linking back to the target, and providing bucketloads of high-value links for pageranking. Gibraltar made a solid effort as did some northern English city. One or two accounts would beaver away at boosting their stature until someone noticed and shut them down.
The problem is that this sort of thing reduces the visibility of what is actually useful and notable. Our users aren't likely to look up an Australian place to find out the Indigenous name - something of no practical use in buying train tickets or finding the rainfall for July or whatever - and giving such names prominence is WP:UNDUE, especially if a user is using a smaller device, relying on Google to give a one-paragraph overview, or having Siri/Alexa/HAL read out the first sentence.
I see this sort of thing as akin to tourists putting stickers on information signs when they travel. It may be significant to them to whack a colourful Barrow-in-Furness decal on a landmark sign, but for everyone else it's just noise. --Pete (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I can’t say I’ve ever used Wikipedia to buy train tickets or finding the rainfall for July, Pete. We all use encyclopaedias for different reasons - my reason is to learn about a topic, and for places that specifically means I want to know if it has historical or alternate names, I want to know the culture, the demographics, why the place is what it is. If I look up a New Zealand article, I’ll specifically be thinking ‘I wonder what the Te Reo name is’ and if it is in the parenthesis as per the guidelines, I can see it easily. It might not increase your engagement, but it increases my engagement and I’d be willing to bet that both sides of the coin are the same for pretty much everyone - because some people want to know about certain things, and others don’t.
Regarding GoodDay’s comment, there is nothing out of the ordinary for non-english alternate names to be in the English Wikipedia, they’re literally everywhere, it has been normal and common for as long as I can remember - and I’ve been geeking out on random corners of Wikipedia for many years. If anything it’s the opposite scenario, it is unusual that there is such a pushback from a small number of editors when this sort of debate seems unthinkable in other areas of the English Wikipedia. GadigalGuy (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
You miss the point, GadigalGuy. I'm not saying an Indigenous name isn't imnportant and I think it is a must to include in the history section if we can find one that is authentic and well-sourced. But there is a big difference between important and useful. Do you really think anyone uses Wikipedia to buy a train ticket? How odd, if so. But I can pretty much guarantee that nobody buys a train ticket to Bungambrewatha so I wonder about your idea of what the average user of Wikipedia goes looking for. What informs your opinion? Perhaps you have some research on Wikipedia users you could share with us?
I don’t think people use Wikipedia to buy train tickets, but apparently you do… But maybe people do look up train ticket companies in specific locations. Who knows! Which is exactly my point, and kinda the point you just made (ironically) - neither you, nor I, know what people use Wikipedia for, we all use it for a variety of reasons, so you can’t justify that ‘people aren’t likely to look it up’ as you said. My idea of what the average user goes looking for is as I said above, some people use it to look up certain things, and others use it for the complete opposite reason, or no reason at all. My use includes the occasional thought of ‘what is the name of xyz’, and I’m certain I’m not the only one because it’s not some obscure wacky thought - and when I think about that, I absolutely appreciate the fact that Wikipedia has a guideline for alternative and historical names in parenthesis because it saves me time, I find the information I want, and I’m happy. I actually don’t think that the Indigenous names ‘should be such a priority’ above all else - if they are dual names, absolutely include them as they should be; if they are sourced alternate historic names, include them as per the guidelines in parenthesis because two to four words is hardly going to ruin an article; and if they have more of a story to tell, chuck ‘em in the etymology section, but they may not have much of a story to tell to justify an entire paragraph when a couple of words in parenthesis does the same job. WP:NPOV requires a range of information, and really I don’t think that an encyclopaedia can have too much information just by adding two to four extra words in the first sentence of an entire article, especially when they provide a huge amount of information in such a small space. GadigalGuy (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Try reading what I said about train tickets again. You are dead wrong. I shouldn't have to explain how to comprehend a simple English statement; that's what you are supposed to learn in primary school. If you don't understand how NPOV works, go look it up. Likewise WP:UNDUE. You are pushing a barrow that is not supported by policy or research, and you are being disruptive. --Pete (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Pete, there is no need to be condescending and just pain rude. I don’t know if you had a tough day or whatever, but taking it out on me is a bit shamejob mate. GadigalGuy (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
My position on this issue is that first Australian names are welcome in the history section of an article where well sourced. However, not at the beginning of the lead, except where that name has become commonly used in Australia. So Uluru is perfectly acceptable in the first sentence of the lead of the relevant article but in the case of Sydney, a place that did not even exist before 1788 there is no first nations name that is or can be applicable. Sure, there may well have been place names for areas within the current entity of Sydney, but none of those can be reasonably applied to Sydney as a whole. - Nick Thornetalk01:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Disagreeing with you isn't 'disruptive', mate. Quit calling other editors 'activists' and barrow pushers. You were told to knock it off last month when you were harrassing User:Poketama on the noticeboard. At my count that's at least two different indigenous editors you've targeted with policy acronyms at now in an apparent attempt to intimidate them away from editing. No-one has to prove fidelity to your highly subjective interpretation of wikipedia polcies to participate here. I'm concerned you're verging close to WP:HOUNDING behaviour. - ҉Randwicked҉06:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Gadi and Eora
I am aware of the continuing discussion on this issue, but I have removed the statement that the Dharug word for Greater Sydney was Eora because the source does not support the content. WP:BURDEN. The source was incorrectly identified. It’s actually a post on the website of the historian Keith Vincent Smith.https://www.eorapeople.com.au/2020/06/ Smith states that the local Indigenous people called themselves Eora, meaning “people”. He doesn’t say that Eora was a Dharug word for Greater Sydney. Attenbrow (Sydney’s Aboriginal Past, 2010, p. 24) states that “The word Eora was given…by several colonists as the word for people, but is nowhere given as the name of a ‘tribe’ or a place.”
The statement that the Dharug word for Sydney was Gadi (Cadi) is also contradicted by the best sources. The current sources include a blog page on the Australian Museum website. It is not written by someone with a relevant qualification and does not give references.[3] Attenbrow, in contrast, is a highly respected anthropologist and her book is published by the University of NSW Press. WP:SOURCE. She shows that Cadi was the name of the territory of the Cadigal clan which was on the southern side of Port Jackson and ran from South Head to Darling Harbour (Attenbrow, 2010, p. 24). The other cited source is Tench who actually wrote: "The tribes derive the appellations from the places they inhabit: thus Càmeeragal, means the men who reside in the bay of Cameera; Càdigal, those who reside in the bay of Cadi; and so of the others." Although the original British settlement was on Cadigal land, that land did not correspond to the area of settlement and Cadi was not an Indigenous name for Sydney, then or ever. Some might consider it insulting to the Cadigal to suggest that it was.
It's also not clear why the Cadigal word for their territory should be privileged over the names of the territories of the other 28 or so clans who inhabited the Sydney area. Attenbrow gives the names and approximate range of these territories where known.
I have no problem with articles giving the Indigenous names for particular places where those names are relevant and well documented in reliable sources. I suggest that we remove the incorrect statement that these Indigenous words were names for Sydney and expand the section on the First Inhabitants of the Region in order to give a summary of the clans, their known territories, and their names for these territories. This would be much more valuable for casual readers. If others agree with this approach I would be happy to work with them to develop the article.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Aemilius, I’m not responding to the article content, but I’d like to respond to your understanding specifically on the topic as written above - I am a Gadigal person with a pretty good understanding of the Dharug language considering my family ties, oral knowledge from elders and also having majored on Indigenous Studies with a specific focus on my own culture - The Dharug language and our culture have a very tight link between people and place, we are one and the same, spiritually linked. It’s probably a foreign concept to western perspectives, but it is a well documented thing across many Indigenous cultures in Australia. The word Eora literally translates to ‘people’ and ‘place’, it can’t mean one and not the other for us, it just doesn’t work that way, just like the word Gadigal literally refers to my mob/people and our place, we are the men of Gadi. As a Gadigal person, I can assure you, I am not insulted by seeing our places recognised, in fact it’s the opposite, the names being there for a couple of years has been nice to see. I’m more insulted when non-Gadigal people decide that my mob might be insulted and also when people consistently use past tense referring to us and our cultures, we still exist and I still ‘inhabit’ Gadi after all. If this were an article on Parramatta and not Sydney, I would agree that Gadi was out of place, however this is the Sydney article, which at least to me looks like it is the only article where Gadi would be relevant in this context, same too for Eora, as Greater Sydney also redirects here. It’s only recently been a hot topic after a very small number of users decided to jump on and delete the Indigenous names from anywhere they could find out of nowhere. I might be biased but I doubt the Australian Museum and National Library of Australia are, keeping accurate records is their job after all, so I trust them as valid sources - and in this case, they both match what I know from elders and my degree which adds in the reliability factor to make up a sound conclusion. GadigalGuy (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
My intention isn’t to remove Gadi from the article, but to add all the relevant Indigenous names whenever they are well attested in the most reliable sources and unlikely to be successfully challenged. There are many highly reliable sources which show that other clans in the Sydney area had other names for their territories and none of them fully equate to Sydney, however defined. You mention Parramatta, which I assume you agree is part of the Sydney metropolis. The Sydney metropolis now covers the land of about 29 clans. Only including the Gadigal word in the lead might be seen as presumptuous. My intention is to move the word Cadi from the lead and place it in an expanded section on the First Inhabitants of the Region in order to give a summary of the clans of Sydney, their known territories, and their names for these territories. This is in line with WP:OTHERNAMES which states. “If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended.” Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
You're suggesting the Indigenous Education Project Officer of the Australian Museum doesn't have the qualifications to comment on what the indigenous name of Sydney is? Why do you assert this? - ҉Randwicked҉07:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I did not assert this. I linked to the relevant policy and assumed people would read it and interpret my comments on the relative reliability of the sources in that context. To be specific, policy states that the author’s reputation and qualifications are relevant to reliability; that blogs might not be subject to an organisation’s usual fact checking processes; and that, “If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science.” The current source is a blog page without references written by a person whose qualification is a Bachelor of Science in Biology. In contrast, Attenbrow is a highly respected archaeologist/anthropologist with decades of research experience in Indigenous history and culture, her book is fully referenced and is published by the University of NSW Press which has very high standards of peer review. I wasn't trying to impugn anyone and I apologise if my summary came across that way. Do you have an opinion on the merits of my proposal? I was considering creating a RfC but I wanted to see if we could reach an informal consensus first. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
My position is clear. I'm a strong supporter of well attested indigenous names in prominent places in Australian articles, and I think that an article written by an officer (who is Aboriginal, no less) of one of the city's preeminent cultural institutions is good attestation to Gadi being an recognised name for Sydney. For this opinion, I've been insinuated to be an 'activist editor' by User:Simulaun, who has not contributed anything to this encyclopedia besides their persistent attempts to erase Aboriginal names from articles, and abused as 'woke' by User:Skyring, who should know better. I'm neither, and the abuse coming from that side is souring me on contributing to this project in general, but if you're asking in good faith then I'm willing to give input in good faith. If rigorous, reliable sources are important, I point to the NSW Place Names Register, as a source for officially gazetted dual names that should all be given prominence in this encyclopedia without delay. https://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/place_naming/place_name_search - ҉Randwicked҉12:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for linking to the NSW names register. I did a search for Cadi and Gadi and all I found were a few Cadi/Cadigal Parks and Reserves. Can you show me where it says that Cadi is an official dual name for Sydney? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't, hence the use of other reliable sources, like the Australian Museum. The point is, there is a lot of under-representation of already officially dual-named features in this encyclopedia. It's real curious that so much effort is being extended by a few editors to remove names from articles, when there is already such a paucity of them here. That's my contribution to your proposal. A lot more effort needs to be taking place to INCLUDE indigenous names in Wikipedia, and a lot less effort expended excluding them. Some editors, though, don't seem to be here to do anything BUT that. Weird! - ҉Randwicked҉12:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the type of solid research we should be doing. Just because someone on a website somewhere says the name for a place is xxx doesn't make it so. We can do better than that for a topic so important to identity and history, especially if Wikipedia gets used as some sort of authority. See my draft essay here. --Pete (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
How about a cooperative research paper between the School of Social Sciences at Monash University and the Australian Government (Department of Industry, Innovation and Science) that quite literally refers to Greater Sydney as Eora (the Eora Nation)? Is their research not up to scratch? It would be nice if my sourcing efforts were able to be used somewhere in the article, and I'd appreciate it if you could write it in - in the way you think is suitable so that I don't have to keep running up against brick walls - because that seems like you just don't want me contributing at all. I've tried your suggestions and each time you revert my contributions, so it is time for you to play fair and do your bit please. GadigalGuy (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
No. Their research is not up to scratch. Sweet Jesus, trying to use that as historical or linguistic research is like using a Lego model as an example of how to design a car. Maybe a brilliant Lego design but Aston-Martin doesn't build their expensive automobiles out of plastic toy bricks. Geez. Basic rule of thumb here is that if a modern source gives an Indigenous place name, they got it from somewhere else or they made it up. Let's find the source they used, and if we can't nail down the source they used, then we may assume they plucked it out of the air. It's not as if historical documents, maps, journals, and reports are thin on the ground. We can do this and do it right. --Pete (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I could have sworn I saw you say secondary sources were fine in the past, so that is an interesting response. But consider me shocked that research by Monash University and the Australian Government as part of their cooperative research project isn't up to scratch, particularly when it is stating a name that is common knowledge. I'd be surprised if we didn't all know where the Eora Nation/Eora is, given how frequently it is referred to in everyday life in the city. GadigalGuy (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I do hope you are not serious. It's not a good source for historical information. Simple as that. They just pluck the name out of the air. Find the source they used. Do you think the topic is important enough to justify finding the actual sources for the name? Or are you more interested in playing games? We are writing an encyclopaedia, and for something like this, we should really have the best possible sources, not some study on freeways or pork futures or whatever, no matter how learned and respected the authors might be on transport and pigs. --Pete (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
If you would like to provide a better source that shows the name is wrong or shows an alternative name, it would be helpful if you do so. At the moment you're just deleting things that quite a few people have said are well sourced. Poketama (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm too weary of these types of discussions (blame it on the old diacritics wars), concerning non-english names. Moving on. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@Poketama: There is an ongoing discussion on this issue. Please don't insert content when the source you cite contradicts this content. Please don't cite entire books, cite the relevant pages. Given that I have cited relevant policy and reliable sources for my position, please provide the direct quote from your sources which supports your content and explain why you think the sources I cited are not reliable. Let's keep this discussion to policy and reliable sources, and refrain from altering content on this disputed issue without an explanation and discussion.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
See the first section by Evelyn Araluen, they refer repeatedly to Eora in the same way that GadigalGuy has expalined the name is used. Poketama (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a three page chapter, just look for the word Eora. I have an eBook that I suppose has different page numbers from yours. Poketama (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Quite a good effort, nice work. Might want some feedback from GadigalGuy as I'm sure he's got some feedback. Only feedback I have is all instances of 'Indigenous' should be changed to 'Aboriginal'. Poketama (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I certainly do have some feedback, hopefully it is helpful info cause I'm gonna give some local stuff to work with
In the name section, given that the "The initial British settlement.. Gadi" is talking about Gadi specifically, the wording seems kinda off and the point gets lost in it. I'd probably switch it around to something that makes Gadi the focus of that sentence, seeing as its the reason that sentence is there anyway. So maybe like an expanded reworded version of the Australian Museum sentence "Before it was called Sydney, the land that the inner city is situated on was called Gadi by the Gadigal people." or similar.
The paragraph above the table, I know it's probably a quoted thing about the meaning of Eora, but it doesn't mean either people or place, it means both, people or place. It's basically the same thing to us, easiest example would be our connection to the land, it's part of us.
It's talking about history so obviously everything is past tense, but it almost sounds as though we don't exist anymore. Probably something to consider.
Regarding the table with the records from British Settlers - I know that this is 'as recorded by them', but it also should have a note of some sort to say that it isn't factually accurate with what we know today - or a second table with comparisons that fill in the gaps, there are probably sources out there but the examples below I'm just using my knowledge that's been passed down from elders and local mob.
Examples (cherry-picking some obvious ones) of what I would add in a second table/what is an obvious indicator of factual inaccuracies by the Brits:
- Burramattagal isn't listed at all (Burramatta, Parramatta)
- Bediagal is listed as territorial name 'not recorded' and located 'probably north west of Parra'
Remembering the -gal suffix, Bedigal translates to Man of Bedia, so the territory/country name can only be Bedia - which is located in the opposite direction to the record, it's actually the country around Revesby/South Sydney.
- Darramurragal is listed as territorial name 'not recorded' and located 'Turramurra area'
This one should be obvious... Same thing, -gal suffix - Territorial name & location are both Turramurra.
- Gadigal, Gadi with a G is the consistent spelling by everyone I know and used by pretty much all public Welcome/Acknowledgements to Country... not a major difference but we've already seen how people from foreign countries on the talk page above are confused by the C/G spelling difference even though they're referring to the same thing, so to avoid that, a second table would be better with a G to be consistent with what we actually use for our mob these days.
- Gahbrogal, 'not recorded', located 'Liverpool and Cabramatta'
Similar to Turramurra, this one should be more obvious because the current location name is basically the same... Current spelling is typically Cabrogal, Man of Cabro, located around Livo & Cabramatta
-Birrabirragal and a bunch of others under the table are listed as territory not reliably recorded (not a huge difference to the actual recorded stuff but anyway)
Birrabirragal, Man of Birra Birra, territory name is Birra Birra and location is actually the land around Tarralbe (South Head) and near the Birra Birra reef (just offshore)
@GadigalGuyThanks for your detailed and very useful response. In response to your points (in approx. order):
1) I've changed the sentence in the Name section you mention to: "The Gadigal (Cadigal) clan, whose territory stretched along the southern shore of Port Jackson from South Head to Darling Harbour, were the traditional owners of the land on which the British settlement was initially established, and called their territory Gadi (Cadi)."
2) Meaning of Eora.
As you point out, it’s a direct quote and we need to accurately reflect what the source says. The problem I have with the translation “people” is that the word Eora clearly excluded white people. The locals had other names for the British. I think I read a translation somewhere which was: “People of this place” (as opposed to the British who they called "people from far away." If I can find it, I will add it.
3) It's talking about history so obviously everything is past tense, but it almost sounds as though we don't exist anymore. Probably something to consider.
- Good point. Perhaps you could draft a section in the article about the revival of the reconstructed Dharug language? I understand that it’s taught in some schools in Western Sydney now. It could go in the education or culture section of the article. It would actually be a good addition to an article about Sydney.
4) Names as recorded by British.
- I have added a note stating: “The names and territory boundaries do not always correspond with those used by contemporary Aboriginal groups of the greater Sydney area.” I am purely presenting this as the information presented by modern academics based on the writings of the British. Attenbrow does have a table with alternative spellings but there are so many of them it would be too confusing for a general article like this. A second Table giving modern names, however, might be useful and is something we can develop, providing we find high quality sources.
5) Burramattagal isn't listed at all (Burramatta, Parramatta)
I think Boromedigal = Burramattagal (!)
6) Bedigal translates to Man of Bedia, so the territory/country name can only be Bedia - which is located in the opposite direction to the record, it's actually the country around Revesby/South Sydney.
- If you can find a good source for this, that would be great. We can use it in a second Table.
7) Darramurragal is listed as territorial name 'not recorded' and located 'Turramurra area'. Territorial name & location are both Turramurra.
- Unfortunately the source says “not recorded”. I assume the reader will draw the connection. I suppose that Collins thought the connection was so obvious he didn't bother recording it.
8) Gadigal/Cadi spelling difference is confusing.
- Agree. I have changed it to: Cadi (Gadi). I don't think that misrepresents the source.
9) Birrabirragal, Man of Birra Birra, territory name is Birra Birra and location is actually the land around Tarralbe (South Head) and near the Birra Birra reef (just offshore)
Now this is how good team work is done! I want to make it very clear I appreciate the effort you're putting into this, and it doesn't feel like I'm so unwelcome here now either. I'll see what else I can dig up for those sources when I have some more spare time through the week. Perhaps the others can do some searching for sources too that'll satisfy their requirements so they don't get RSI from the revert button - it'd feel like a good collaborative effort then. Something we can all be happy with. GadigalGuy (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Looks good. I've downloaded the Attenbrow book as a useful reference. Lots of solid sources there.
GGG, your comments are welcome but we need reliable published sources for anything written and claimed in Wikivoice. Regardless of truth or accuracy, an editor cannot be a source, still less a secondhand report from someone they know. We've had this cause misunderstanding and frustration previously, for example when someone sees that they have a biographical article on Wikipedia and attempts to correct some errors. They certainly know their own birthday, where they went to school and so on, but we cannot use them as a source. This may seem nonsensical but it is the way Wikipedia works and, well, Wikipedia works very well.
The people who landed in what became Sydney in 1788 and those who were there previously no longer exist. They aren't around any more. Sure, we may be their descendants but we are not the same in DNA nor in culture. Over a period of centuries, many things change. Especially language. One only has to read some of the early records - say, the Naval Gazette of the period - to realise that the way those people spoke and behaved was quite different to our manner. Words and meanings have changed, grammar and syntax has evolved, we have lost letters out of the alphabet etc. In life, we do things very differently. We do not make a leg to the gentry nor tug at our forelocks. We do not drink small beer out of butts and pay for it in groats. Australians of this age, I venture, would have great difficulty even in reading the records of the time and I offer Cook's journals, facsimiles of which may be found here. A person of 2022 is not an authority on the English language and culture of 1788, despite it notionally being the same language and people. Not without years of study.
As for the original residents, I suggest that the differences between they and their descendants is far greater than between those who arrived on the First Fleet and their descendants. In lifestyle, culture, diet, language, and knowledge. And appearance. Would one of the original inhabitants regard their descendant of ten generations as being of the same people? I know that if I returned to mediaeval Norway and offered that I was a Viking through my genes, I would have a hard time convincing my ancestors that I was fair dinkum.
This is why we need sources firmly grounded in history and scholarship if we are to present the best information we can rather than whatever we think is a fair thing, regardless of how strongly we hold to our own beliefs. --Pete (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Pete, you said: "but we need reliable published sources for anything written and claimed in Wikivoice"
My response: Yes I know...
Let me explain - I specifically said "I'm just using my knowledge that's been passed down from elders and local mob" and "hopefully it is helpful info cause I'm gonna give some local stuff to work with" for exactly that reason. I was providing local knowledge so that you guys who rave on about research can go off and do some research using the local knowledge as a starting place. You know.. Team work - I'm not gonna be writing the article content because I know that'll be a reverted waste of time as always, so I might as well provide what I can and you can be a good team player by doing the part you don't want me touching. Fair's fair.
Pete, you said: "we need reliable published sources" and "This may seem nonsensical"
My response: Yeah, that's partially my point, the "reliable" sources you're after aren't even reliable by today's standards, we know they're not, but they're the "best" we've got (courtesy of genocide and cultural erasure), and whatever, you do you and Wikipedia can be as "reliable" as it is because "it works well" allegedly (totally not spreading misinformation, just outdated, I get it). It's actually hilarious when you step back and think about it. GadigalGuy (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah it's hilarious that the subject of a biography can't provide information that they are certain is correct but this sort of thing has been discussed at length many times over the years. Editors can't use themselves as sources; that is original research. We need reliable published sources so that readers can check our content and drill down for more in context. That's the way Wikipedia works and if you want to change that you'll have to find a better place than an article talk page to propose major alterations in policy. --Pete (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)