User talk:Gawaon

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

ur contributed articles r super cool to read <3 stumbled across many accidentally and just wanted to say u write very well. much appreciated and have a good day :)

Sukitara (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Very happy to hear it, and thanks for the kitten 😊 Gawaon (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Daisy Bates as an unreliable primary source

Hi Gawaon, I just wanted to discuss using Daisy Bates as a source when it comes to cannibalism and infanticide.

As she is a primary source and as she's very unreliable when it comes to such claims, I would argue that she is not cited in the article. While her work is quite invaluable, she isn't someone that we should trust when it comes to these topics and we should instead use reliable secondary sources on the topic. I'm happy to provide sources that note/discuss her unreliability and which are written by academics if you'd like.

I'd also cite WP:PRIMARY if need be, but I prefer discussing the issue instead of quoting wiki-legalese. FropFrop (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Bates is a primary source, but that doesn't mean she's "unreliable". Our article on her (which you have edited a lot, as I see) says "her work is considered to be an unrivaled source of ethnographic data on the Aboriginal cultures of Western Australia". Now I agree that for generalizations it's better to rely on newer academic work, but an eyewitness account – as is now in the Cannibalism in Oceania article – is another matter. Do you suggest she was lying when she wrote how she followed a woman who had just killed and eaten her baby, and then found the baby's remains? That would be an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence.

WP:PRIMARY says: "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." This seems to cover the mentioned case well – I'd say our reference to her statements is sufficiently careful and no misuse is detectable. Gawaon (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

...but that doesn't mean she's "unreliable". True, but she is unreliable, noteworthily so when it comes to claims of cannibalism and infanticide. She became almost obsessed with it later in her life. de Vries suspects it was part of her dementia.

Quotes on Bates' reliability on the topics of cannibalism and infanticide.

Back in Perth by 1902, Daisy managed to survive by writing articles as a freelance journalist. Many of these warped the truth to appeal to the popular press. They contained sensationalised tales of corroborees and references to cannibalism, two sure-fire sellers in that era. — de Vries, 2008, Desert Queen, pg. 136 Professor John Cleland, a distinguished pathologist and amateur anthropologist... Daisy and Cleland had corresponded for “years over various Aboriginal topics, including cannibalism. In an attempt to support her allegations of cannibalism, in 1920 and again in 1932 Daisy had sent Cleland two boxes of charred bones she claimed to be the remains of cannibal victims. The first box turned out to contain the bones of a cat; the second lot were identified by Cleland, albeit reluctantly, as human remains. — de Vries, 2008, Desert Queen, pg. 248-249 Daisy’s obsessive interest in royalty was matched by her fixation concerning the subject of infant cannibalism among desert Aborigines. This became worse in her seventies and eighties as her dementia increased, and did much to destroy the good impression her previous publications in the field of ethnology had made when she was younger. Daisy used a twisted logic to justify the articles about infant cannibalism she wrote for the popular press: she said that writing them was the only way she could earn money to provide food for starving Aborigines. But, quite rightly, her academic critics derided her for the many references to cannibalism she’d been making. In the tabloid press articles concerned, there are more than forty such references. — de Vries, 2008, Desert Queen, pg. 218-219 In discussing childbirth practices, Mrs Bates writes that new-born babies were sometimes killed and occasionally eaten, but it is probable that she exaggerates the frequency of these occurrences. It is known that an infant would have been killed at birth if it was deformed or if it was born while an older child was still suckling, because a woman could not nourish two babies. However, there is evidence that in pre-contact times it was quite rare for conception to occur while an infant was still being breast-fed (Cowlishaw 1981). Whether mothers ever ate their babies is an unresolved question. Cowlishaw (1978) examined all available literature about infanticide and infant cannibalism throughout Australia; she concludes that there was considerable infanticide and that the infant might be fed to an older child to give it strength; she does not mention finding evidence that the mother herself might partake of this food. An examination of Mrs Bates's notebooks suggests that she collected her evidence about these matters from Europeans rather than from the women themselves, a procedure which she followed very seldom. Her report appears to contradict her own observations of the Aboriginal mothers' great love for their children and their profound mourning for children who died. — Bates & White, 1985, The Native Tribes of Western Australia, pg. 116 With the notable exception of cannibalism, about which she seems to have had a morbid preoccupation (and which also fuelled the journalism providing her principal means of financial support for three decades), there is no obvious reason why Bates would have sought to misrepresent Aboriginal society. — Bob Reece, 2007, You would have loved her for her lore[1]

Do you suggest she was lying when she wrote how she followed a woman who had just killed and eaten her baby, and then found the baby's remains? Her lying wouldn't be surprising, she often produced fiction and twisted facts to support herself financially and to raise her position. Happy to provide specific examples of this if you wish, they are numerous.

That would be an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence. As it is a primary source, for it to be included, its reliability ought to be proven; The onus is not on us to prove that the story itself is fake. It very well could be 100% genuine, but we know for a fact that Daisy is not reliable and we should not use her as a reliable source on topics such as this.

The Passing of the Aborigines [sic] also wasn't written entirely by her. Ernestine Hill playing a big part, in fact chapter 17 (the chapter which the contentious quote is from) "Sits in Middle" of Bates' and Hill's writing styles. We also know that Hill published a fictional account of cannibalism. This all makes the reliability of the book suspect.(Antonia, 2019, More than an Amanuensis: Ernestine Hill’s Contribution to The Passing of the Aborigines, pg. 2 & 12)

On Daisy's book being a primary source and why this is relevant to not including her as a source:

• From WP:PRIMARYCARE: This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true... Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements. As these are controversial 'facts', we'd have to use Bates' quote with the disclaimer that it is what she said and not a reliable account. This wouldn't be worthy of inclusion in the article though as there are plenty of secondary sources on the topic of cannibalism in Oceania to be used instead.
• From WP:RSPRIMARY: Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. There are plenty of secondary sources on the topic of cannibalism in Oceania to be used instead.

FropFrop (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for those quotes from de Vries and others re Bates's reliability – I wasn't aware of that and I'll check it out. More generally I'd agree that, though primary sources are permitted (as long as they are used carefully and sparingly), they aren't strictly needed in any article and it may be better to replace them with reliable secondary sources if possible. The "Australia" section of the Oceania article is currently fairly short, hence I think it's good to have her there, but if more content is added, her statement may become redundant and unnecessary. I'll look into that in a few days. Gawaon (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Use of [sic] for 'Protector of Aborigines'

Hey Gawaon, just wanted to discuss the usage of [sic] when the title 'Protector of Aborigines' comes up. The reason that I was tagging it with [sic] is because while 'Aborigine' is considered a racist and outdated term, it is part of the job title and so I kept it consistent with the source material.

I've gone through quite a lot of articles and replaced instances of 'Aborigine' with 'Aboriginal' as many editors are not aware that the former has fallen out of favour (or were not aware when they wrote the articles). I therefore left ' [sic]' to indicate (to readers as well as editors) that it was written that way intentionally. As, according to MOS:SIC, "In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings, including capitalization... Vulgarities and obscenities should be shown exactly as they appear in the quoted source; Wikipedians should never bowdlerize words (G-d d--m it!), but if the text being quoted itself does so, copy the text verbatim and use [sic] to indicate that the text is quoted as shown in the source."

While I wouldn't consider 'Aborigine' quite archaic, it certainly is out-of-date. The term 'Aborigine' is a vulgarity at this point in time though, so I thought it fair to use ' [sic]'. Plus using a ' [sic]' this way isn't out of the norm.

I'm not particularly attached to the use of ' [sic]' though, so would you have something else in mind that we could use? Or would the use of ' [sic]' be acceptable?

FropFrop (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi FropFrop, I suggest you keep discussions related to Daisy Bates (author) on the article talk page (rather than here or anyway else) to make it easier for people interested in the article to find them and weigh in, if they want to. But as for the use of [sic]: MOS:SIC say to use it "if there is a significant error in the original". But the use of "Aborigines" in those old sources is not an error, it was supposedly intended. The guideline doesn't say to use [sic] after archaic or outdated terms – those are expected in old sources, since language change is normal. So what would be the rationale to use [sic] here? I can't see any. We wouldn't use the term in Wikipedia's voice, since it's nowaways "often considered offensive" (according to Wiktionary), but the use of quotation marks already indicates that something is a quote and hence not Wikipedia's voice. So I don't know why anything beyond that should be needed. Gawaon (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you keep discussions related to Daisy Bates (author) on the article talk page - sure thing, happy to do that for any potential future discussions. Do you see the need to move this discussion there?

what would be the rationale to use [sic] here? - MOS:SIC:

Vulgarities and obscenities should be shown exactly as they appear in the quoted source; Wikipedians should never bowdlerize words (G-d d--m it!), but if the text being quoted itself does so, copy the text verbatim and use [sic] to indicate that the text is quoted as shown in the source.

As the term crops up a lot in the article, as it is often not a direct quote but the title of the position, as it is a vulgarity and/or obscenity and editors often confused it with 'Aboriginal', the use of ' [sic]' made sense to indicate that it was written that way intentionally.

The semi-colon indicated to me that vulgarities and obscenities should "use [sic] to indicate that the text is quoted as shown in the source" but I see that this is an incorrect reading of the policy, even if the reading made sense to me. Especially as the use of [sic] is often used "to show disapproval of the content or form of the material", but again, I know that this would be considered out of our style.

So, if you still find the use of ' [sic]' objectionable, would putting the term in quotes be acceptable? FropFrop (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I also wanted to raise this, so I looked at your talk pages to see how to approach this, and behold, you're already on it. However, if you want me to butt out, please tell me.

It has been reasoned in the past that as per WP:GRATUITOUS‪, ‬WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean "offensive content is exempted". Why CAN'T an offensive word be omitted as per ‪WP:OM, either by (1) marking the change up outright ‬with ellipses (" ... ") and square brackets ("[]"), or (2) ‪silently making trivial changes that do ‬not affect the intended meaning‪ OTHER than to address the offence as per ‬WP:QUOTE such that the change is an equally suitable alternative that does not cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate‪? CHOOSING to CONTINUE to use a word well-known to be offensive is just so very plainly a ‬WP:BADIDEA‪, offensive material is subject to ‬"inclusion guidelines" like everything else, and does its omission really "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate"? ‪Making silent changes or omitting outright isn’t ‬WP:BOWDLERIZE. Wikipedia does not HAVE to contain offensive material.

The pushback by some along the lines of "but the title of a chapter or work in a citation isn’t a quote", I can appreciate but also not reconcile. Is there ANY field in a {{cite book}} for example that I don’t have near infinite flexibility in? Take authors: do we include all authors, or just the first three followed by et al, or the first six? Do we do family-name-comma-given-name? All given names, or just the first? First letter of first given name(s) only, or first letter of all given names, or first given name in full and the rest just first character? Separated by space, thinspace, or nothing, with period or without? What about authors with just one name like Madonna and Prince, or who are from cultures that have family name at the front? What do we do with tussenvoegsel? We’re still on author BTW, and I’m not done but won’t bore you further because I think the point is made. The purpose of a citation is to provide as many paths as possible towards a source, the more paths and the easier and more direct the better. But as long as that goal is achieved, there ARE no hard "rules" and instead we have almost infinite freedom as long as we satisfy the goal of identifying the source. So why can I now not put "The Passing of the Aboriginals" as the title … which replaces an 'e' with 'al' … or if you’re worried about being able to find it in dumb search engines even just "The Passing of the [Aboriginal people ...]"? Serious?!?!? THERE some insist on a specific form no matter how offensive? How many ways did Shakespeare write his name, but when we cite him today, do we use the spelling he used at the time, or his current spelling? What about publishers? Current name, or name at publishing?

‪Just because people behaved atrociously in the past does not mean we have to continue doing so by now CHOOSING to CONTINUE to use this offensive word, because that is then on us NOW, not them THEN. None of us needs to be a captive of our past.‬ Elrondil (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not HAVE to contain offensive material.

I'm sorry, but this is an absurdity. We do actually have to represent the material proportional to how our sources do, and Wikipedia is not censored. That's not to say every offensive possibility is due for inclusion, but potential offensiveness cannot be a motivating part of our reasoning when deciding what to include where. Remsense ‥ 论 07:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Please read my reply again, slowly this time. I did NOT say we are free to misrepresent, nor that WP:OM must be "our primary reasoning". And I didn't just not say it, I also don't believe it. We are free to decide what we say and don't say, and that includes deciding whether to include offensive material or not, especially when there is an equally suitable alternative. Elrondil (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is, an editorial mindset like that translates very easily to editors giving themselves permission to omit whatever they find offensive regardless, because they "found an equivalent". There isn't always going to be an equivalent, but if you are motivated you can always find one. Remsense ‥ 论 07:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Are you saying that "Aboriginals" … which replaces an 'e' with 'al' ... one character in a word with two other characters … is not a suitable equivalent? That because we as humans are weak, WP:GRATUITOUS‪‬ must not be followed when it says offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available? Please explain how those two characters cause the article "to be less informative, relevant, or accurate" and the resulting word is not an "equally suitable alternative"? Elrondil (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That's right, because that's not what the title was. It's not our place to unilaterally replace the title with a meaningfully different one—that it is meaningfully different is the only reason you want to change it! Any editorial choice we take must be reflected in our sources. Remsense ‥ 论 07:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll avoid the deeper topic you've raised here sorry and I'll just comment on the idea that you've had that is relevant for the article.

I think it fair to omit 'Aborigine' when the name of the title has already been given and thence referring to it as 'Protector'. This is the approach I took, as I think it important to present the history with minimal change, as well as there being no value in repeating the term. I do think it important to signify (both for readers and other editors) that we signify that the term is derogatory and I thought that ' [sic]' was a fair approach. Would you have an opinion on that point? What about quoting the term as so (and maybe even adding a note?): Bates applied for the position of "Honorary Protector of Aborigines"

FropFrop (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

No, that note would be completely unacceptable editorializing on our part, and Wikipedia is not censored. Remsense ‥ 论 08:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain how that is editorialising? In any case, sources do do this:

• Isobel White in "The native tribes of Western Australia" says "The Chief Protector ... [sic], Mr Gale most kindly exerted himself in the matter and the result was my being able to visit the districts mentioned as having changed their Classes and Divisions." page 12
• Bates refers to the position as such as well: "“The Chief Protector, the dearest old lady in the world, was horrified. If I could only body snatch it, it would be invaluable.”" Elizabeth Salter's 'Daisy Bates' (1972), page 132.

FropFrop (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm 100% sure other authors do this, but it's not as easy to ctrl+f 'protector' in physical books. FropFrop (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Assuming that usage is in the minority in our sources, our selective preference for it would violate WP:BALANCE. The term is racist, but we don't get to interpolate that in our biography unless our sources do also, even if it is clearly a social fact, see WP:SYNTH. The question here is whether it's in the minority of our sources. Remsense ‥ 论 08:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

How would it violate balance? I don't think using 'Aboriginal' is a good idea, but there's no difference in meaning to simply shorten the term to 'Protector'.

Just had a flip through Reece's 'Daisy Bates - Grand dame of the desert' (2007) and he does it as well on page 65. "...she reported cheerfully to Chief Protector Gale in Perth..."

de Vries and Lomas seem to be the only ones to not do it at all. So that's 3/5 sources that do it. Not a minority and almost perfectly balanced. FropFrop (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If the sources legitimate it, then there is no problem whatsoever. I only object to doing something the sources do not. Remsense ‥ 论 08:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Nice. @Elrondil What do you think about this option?

Because I am confused and wish to understand your thinking: As it seems to be standard practice to not include offensive material if there is not benefit in doing so (WP:GRATUITOUS: Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.) what part of the following would result in the article being less informative?

• Have the full name of the title when it is first noted, explain that it is offensive and that the full name will not be used from hence forth.

FropFrop (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@FropFrop: I think it is valid. I wouldn't say the "full name will not be used henceforth" bit (I would just do it: state it once in italics as per MOS:WAW or hyperlink to the protector role), {{efn}} the word as now being recognised as a racist word (and if you're able to support the statement that the word at the time was not considered racist, I would add that too), and get back to focusing on Bates), but that is just me and I'm not convinced the full title needs to be named at all or that it needs to be qualified (how many different types of protectors were there, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT), but you're the editor here 😀. Elrondil (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@FropFrop: I would add an {{efn}} that explains the word is racist and offensive, and just like it's OK to say President Trump say Protector Bates or Honorary Protector Bates. Elrondil (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it is unacceptable editorializing, and frankly original research if it is not something our sources about Bates do. Remsense ‥ 论 08:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

LOL! Elrondil (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I apologize that my attempts to adhere to our content policies are reading as funny to you, but you don't seem quite as serious about that goal. Remsense ‥ 论 08:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: I find your attempt at interpreting the guidelines and policies funny. Not the goal, nor the guidelines and policies. Elrondil (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You have no leg to stand on here. It's not your place to change what our sources say because it is offensive, period. Unless sources say it, you may not. Remsense ‥ 论 08:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if I wanted to (and, again, I don't) I can't change what the sources said. But we ARE able to mark up differences between what they said and what we say using ellipses and square brackets. That is established practice in academia and Wikipedia. For the original, read the source itself. Elrondil (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

No, there's clearly a difference. In these situations, we provide transcription, not facsimile: what that means is we preserve the meaning if we alter the presentation of text. For example, we replace þ with th when transcribing Old English text, because we take the difference to be purely typographical and immaterial to the meaning. Again, you only want to do this because it changes one word to another with a different meaning. This is blatant censorship. Remsense ‥ 论 08:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You do know that the offensive word has evolved significantly from its original colonial context, right? Preserve the meaning, not the spelling. Elrondil (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, preserve the meaning in context: we change þ to th, but we don't change Old English words themselves if they have become obsolete or have entirely disjunctive meanings in their modern forms unless our sources do so. It would totally mislead readers to tell them the historical title happened to use a different word, one that we presently find acceptable. That would give that colonial society a bit too much credit in the minds of some, would it not? Remsense ‥ 论 08:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ellipses and square brackets are the correct, legitimate and accepted way of expressing the difference between what was said and what we are saying, expressly for the purpose of ensuring readers are not misled. Elrondil (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, we don't get to decide that equivalence, our sources do! In general, we are not allowed to insert our own analysis of primary sources, and this is clearly a case of that. Remsense ‥ 论 23:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You might notice that we have an article Protector of Aborigines which does not use quotation marks, let alone " [sic]". Since we don't use quotation marks there, I can't think of a good reason to use them elsewhere. Plus, it is a historical term, today such an office could obviously neither exist in that form nor would it have such a name. But we don't have to say that explicitly, our readers are not stupid (on average) and can make up their own minds. Gawaon (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

...we have an article Protector of Aborigines which does not use quotation marks, let alone " [sic]" We can decide to not follow how another article has been written. Myself and another editor think there is good reason to not do so.

...our readers are not stupid (on average) and can make up their own minds. Alas other editors are unaware of the difference, so I think it quite reasonable to assume that some significant number of readers will not either. Especially if they're not from Australia. I'll try and find the talk page where I saw editors learn of this distinction if you wish, I can't remember it off the top of my head unfortunately.

Would you object to doing the following:

1. Have the full name of the title when it is first noted. Include this first mention with a note that explain that it is offensive, that the full title will not be used from hence forth and will instead be shortened to 'Protector'.
2. Do not include the word 'Aborigine' in the titles from then on in the article.

This option follows the convention used in other sources, so any objections to this being 'editorialising' are null:

• Bob Reece's 'Daisy Bates - Grand dame of the desert' (2007) and he does it as well on page 65. "...she reported cheerfully to Chief Protector Gale in Perth..."
• Isobel White in "The native tribes of Western Australia" says "The Chief Protector ... [sic], Mr Gale most kindly exerted himself in the matter and the result was my being able to visit the districts mentioned as having changed their Classes and Divisions." page 12
• Bates refers to the position as such as well: "“The Chief Protector, the dearest old lady in the world, was horrified. If I could only body snatch it, it would be invaluable.”" Elizabeth Salter's 'Daisy Bates' (1972), page 132.

FropFrop (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

As for your second point, that's effectively already the case, since the term "Protector of Aborigines" is currently only mentioned once in the article. As for adding an explanatory note that it's offensive, we can't do that since it's (a) OR and (b) editorializing, as Remsense already pointed out above. Gawaon (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No need for OR.

See https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/08/why-saying-aborigine-isnt-ok-8-facts-about-indigenous-people-in-australia/ (and repeated by https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/comment-why-saying-aborigine-isnt-ok-says-amnesty/48s5xvv6x).

Also a little here: https://www.workingwithindigenousaustralians.info/content/Indigenous_Australians_3_Approrpiate_Terms.html

And here: https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/why-do-media-organisations-like-news-corp-reuters-and-the-new-york-times-still-use-words-like-aborigines/avk41feu1

Not much explanation here: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/aborigine

Pretty clear here: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/aborigine

Challenged by https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-15/dillon---political-correctness3a-an-impediment-to-reconciliati/3731552

Elrondil (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not editorialising. It's effectively common knowledge her in Aus and in any case, Elrondil has provided sources.

editorializing, as Remsense already pointed out above. Actually, Remsense said they wouldn't have an issue If the sources legitimate it, then there is no problem whatsoever. I only object to doing something the sources do not. Which, as we've seen, the sources do.

Would you have any other objections?

FropFrop (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, if the article is properly edited and repetitions eliminated, the term "Protector of Aborigines" needs to be used only once, so the whole issue is moot. I'd also say it's logical to shorten the term to just "Protector" in subsequent mentions in the same section, though the same isn't true of repeated mentions in different sections. (We cannot expect our readers to read the whole article in its original order, since many don't.) Gawaon (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. I'll go through and make that adjustment (if it hasn't already).

FropFrop (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Aztecs

Please don't make reverts if you don't search about the topic. That ruins are in an official archeological site named "Museo de sitio CCEMx-INAH". Difuarti (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, but do you have a reliable source for that? The photos themselves unfortunately don't say where they were taken, as far as I can tell, and quick googling tells me that some of the "Vestigios de Tenochtitlan" can be found at both sites (Templo Mayor Museum and Centro Cultural de España). Gawaon (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hello Gawaon: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --HirowoWiki (talk | contribs) 07:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thanks a lot, and the same to you! Gawaon (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Synecdoche IPA

A synecdoche is a figure of speech, so when you see something discussing words and then (synecdoche) in brackets one may assume that it refers to synecdoches, not the Wikipedia article for synecdoche. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, but if you explain the link to synecdoche like that, how would you explain the links to coup d'etat, Leicester, and Ralph Fiennes, likewise given in parentheses in the same sentence? I'd say the context makes it clear enough that these are all examples. Gawaon (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Those aren't figures of speech. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant, clearly readers will evaluate the sentence as a whole. But if you think that that example should be removed, I suggest you raise the point at the talk page of the page in question. Or you find another example page title that you don't consider confusing. Personally I think having these examples makes sense and should be kept, but I don't particularly care about which article is used as example. Gawaon (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If you still can't understand my reasoning there is no point in carrying this on any further. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Gawaon. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me! I think I'll fill out your questionnaire, but it'll be a while since I'm currently quite busy elsewhere. Gawaon (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to take your time, there isn't a deadline. Thanks for your interest! Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)