I note the arrival a few days ago of a new editor who claims Australian places should be referred to using backformed Indigenous names, with the modern English names in brackets.
This page in a nutshell: Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution.
The editor claims on his user page
As an Indigenous Person, my goal is to improve Indigenous representation - I believe that one of the easiest ways to do this is to provide greater awareness of Indigenous Geographical Place Names alongside their Colonial counterparts, and as such, this is my main focus when contributing to Wikipedia.
Added Indigenous Place Name alongside Colonial Place Name for equal representation
His argument seems to be that Indigenous Australians outnumbered colonials throughout Australia at the time place names were being assigned and therefore the local names should take precedence.
I think that this sort of editing is problematical and needs some wiser eyes on it than mine. --Pete (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I am that new user, what Skyring has presented here is a misrepresentation of my reasoning by using my response to ‘’’his’’’ suggestion that the population was what determined which names should be used. See, here, and here
I have made it clear on more than one occasion here for example that my suggestion is to use the correct names that historical/conservation organisations, such as The National Museum of Australia, use. Those organisations are credible historical sources which have determined the names to be true and correct to display them in history articles and museum exhibits.
The claims for particular place names originate not from me, but from what I believe to be credible sources (such as The National Museum of Australia for Kamay, and Nipaluna which has excerpts from historical recordings) with the exception of Bhundoo and Batemans Bay as I explain here, I have strong ties to that local community which has an Indigenous demographic higher than the NSW State Average and is home to the public school with the highest proportion of Indigenous students in the Southern NSW District & one of the highest in the country, with 74% of students identifying as Indigenous - the community strongly respect the Indigenous elders wishes and recognises the names Bhundoo & that Batemans Bay is located in Yuin Country. - This explanation is specifically in the context that Skyring has suggested ‘common usage recognised amongst the community similar to Uluru’, which in this case is the same situation.
Skyring continues to point out that I have expressed on my user page that my “main focus” is improving Indigenous representation, as though I am only intending to stir trouble with radical fringe views. His advice on how I contribute to Wikipedia has been colourful.
I stand by my main focus, of which I am well-intentioned (as I hope providing credible evidence such as The National Museum of Australia shows my intention is well-meaning), we all have our niche interests that we focus on. With how I contribute to Wikipedia, while his colourful advice is noted, I have also expressed on my ‘talk’ page that I would like to contribute more broadly to the WikiProject Australia group, which I was made aware of here and prior to that did not know existed. A number of other people have been welcoming of my perspective which I hope serves to be a positive and constructive contribution to Wikipedia.
I suspect it is highly unlikely that any settler/colonial towns or cities have or had indigenous names (apart from places established as Aboriginal missions). It is almost certain that the territory they are built on did have an indigenous name (or names in border areas), along with the prominent hills, creeks, rivers etc. The boundaries and aggregations might be different though (for example did the watercourse we know as the Murray River from source to mouth have different names along its length and viewed going upstream, do the indigenous names follow the same choices about which fork to follow as the European names or might we find the Darling River mouth at Goolwa for example? --Scott DavisTalk04:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Undoubtedly any colonial settlements soon developed names amongst the existing locals, if for no other reason than to put a label on the place where the newcomers live and do weird and dangerous things. I'm not disputing GadigalGuy's place names; he seems to be putting some effort into rummaging through websites and stuff, and God knows we need more people with a keen interest in research. It's just that I find his zeal a little misplaced and not quite in tune with they way things are done here, and possibly his notion of logic is a little rocky. Or possibly mine is; I prefer Plato over Aristotle. --Pete (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that we can all agree that Australian history and geography is pretty much weighted on the settlers' rather than Indigenous people's perspective, and I welcome any contributions which help to address the balance, within the usual Wikipedia conventions of course. I don't think that it's correct to write the Indigenous name with no explanation ahead of the current, or more well-known, English Australian name each time it is mentioned, but I do think that where any history is written about a place, if an earlier name, or an Indigenous name given concurrently with European settlement, exists, this should be recorded in some way, e.g. "in the area known to the [] people as [], now known as []", with a citation to support it. This for places where the Indigenous name is not commonly known, and the place not officially renamed (such as Uluru, now widely known) or dual-named. All editors start with knowing little about Wikipedia conventions and learn as they go along, and (after a quick glance at the lengthy discussion here - too long for me to digest now), it looks to me as if GadigalGuy has taken a lot of your suggestions on board, Skyring. I too put some effort into "rummaging through websites and stuff", more so when I am writing about something I know little about, which includes a lot of Australian history. So long as the sources are reliable, and the names framed with appropriate sourcing and context, what is the problem? Are there not enough eyes already on these articles? Also, when such long discussions occur on talk pages, often dominated by a single opposing voice, it deters other editors from participating. I don't have any problem with GadigalGuy focussing on his stated area of interest, and I see evidence of his taking on your and others' advice, so I don't see much to be concerned about. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the crusade to put common names into second place has been halted, and hopefully the zeal may be used in more productive areas, such as exploring the history and etymology of local names - and local people - at our various articles on Australian places. There is a lot of work to be done there, and GadigalGuy looks like he's willing to do it.
It's not my opinion or yours or anybody else's that matters. It's wikipolicy and wikistyle, and WP:PLACE specifies that modern English place names are to be used in general text and as article names. If you want to change Wikpedia's policy on place names, then this is not the best place to do it. Giving details on Indigenous names goes in the lede, history, and infobox sections in place articles, a matter which has already been discussed at length and consensus found. --Pete (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Four things that are probably worth mentioning:
1) Wikipedia's Fifth Pillar which says "Wikipedia has no firm rules" "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles."
2) WP:IAR says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
3) WP:PLACE says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
4) WP:PARTR says "The most important principle is to continually improve rather than destroy." and "The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits."
I think that obviously the guidelines should be followed, but in this situation, we have numerous prominent sources (peak historical/conservation bodies, government agencies, universities etc) recently presenting a particular name in their publications of the topic at hand, and while they may have different procedures of review, and while it may not fit perfectly within a stringent interpretation of WP:PLACE or other guidelines for example, I think Wikipedia has expressed a relative level of openness to including information like that, rather than strict adherence that blocks any mention of it. The idea that information that is accepted and shared across numerous prominent sources is somehow not suitable for Wikipedia in similar or identical contexts, seems well... odd.
In this case, we have all of those prominent sources referring to Botany Bay as "Kamay" in intentional publications that discuss what is largely the same or near-similar content, for whatever reason they all seem to agree on, they all end up with the same word.
With the 4 principles above in mind, would it really be reckless to include that word in some way, shape or form? Would it really be disruptive or vandalism to include it?
I don't interpret Wikipedia's guidelines as saying "if it isn't a square going into a square hole, don't even think about it", quite the opposite, "if the circle isn't damaging, put it in the square hole, just don't be inappropriate".
In my comment, I have tried to find a way that is respectful of WP:PLACE and to take into consideration other concerns, while still allowing for "Kamay" to get a mention, as it does very overtly in the prominent sources such as The National Museum of Australia - in doing so, I have proposed the following:
Where the article states:
"Sir Joseph Banks, the eminent scientist who had accompanied Lieutenant James Cook on his 1770 voyage, recommended Botany Bay as a suitable site."
Perhaps it could say:
"Sir Joseph Banks, the eminent scientist who had accompanied Lieutenant James Cook on his 1770 voyage, recommended Botany Bay as a suitable site, an area known to the local Indigenous people as "Kamay".[1]"
While it doesn't necessarily fit a stringiest interpretation of the guidelines, it's certainly not vandalism, destructive, untoward, inappropriate material. It just adds a small chunk of extra information & understanding, and includes the thing that other sources include in their publications of what is mostly the same topic - without going as far as they have, in that they have directly replaced "Botany Bay" with "Kamay". In this way, it preserves both bits of information.
I feel like those 4 Wikipedia guidelines mentioned above would be accepting, and even encouraging of this contribution - but I guess that's not for me to judge, as the one proposing the addition of "Kamay".
So I guess, with that said, it's up to you all... what do you think? Should I add it in?
The proposed mention looks more like throwing in the Indigenous name for the sake of using it. Like waving the flag over a bit of land to show that it has been conquered. Joseph Banks, whose growing influence in British government after his return from Cook's voyage was crucial, didn't know about the local name of Botany Bay, or if he did - how? - then he didn't mention it. The knowledge came later, and if we use it inappropriately, then it's like the Olympian voice of Wikipedia reaching back from the future. "Little did Sir Joseph know at the time…" (And on that note, Banks wasn't knighted until long after he returned from the expedition, and Cook wasn't 'Captain Cook' when he had the Endeavour. All these little anachronisms detract from the historical accuracy, and some of our readers will tut-tut, hit the edit button to set us straight, and we really should avoid that by getting stuff right to start with.)
If Gadigalguy really wants to help improve the encyclopaedia, instead of righting great wrongs by dropping in as many Indigenous names as he can - "George Street, which was known to the Eora Nation as Bunjiwunyawunya, ran from A to B." - could instead take himself to our Botany Bay article and put in some of the sources he's collected there to improve the article, and then find other places which were significant to the Indigenous people at the time of colonisation and beyond, and add in the local names and perspective, albeit the early descriptions and narratives were written by the Europeans and any input with the locals was neccessarily filtered through European eyes and views before being recorded in English. That kind of thing helps tell a more complete story, is consistent with policy, and can really add to the value of our work. --Pete (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Apologies in advance for the frustration that will be evident in my response
Throwing in the name for the sake of using it? No. That's completely incorrect and asserts that what I've been trying to do has been a non-genuine attempt to contribute. The intention is actually to bring it into line with the numerous prominent sources that use it, and actually go some way towards acknowledging the existence of Indigenous Peoples within that section of the article on Colonisation - That is not for the sake of it. That section gives a huge acknowledgement to the British, forgets the bad bits, even gives the French a decent mention, and what do the Indigenous get... 7 words hidden away in the timeline as an afterthought and any attempt to actually acknowledge Indigenous existence has been "jump through this hoop", "oh you did that, wait here's another hoop" and shut down every. single. time. That section of the article doesn't even come close to achieving neutrality, nor is there any evident attempt for it to do so.
If I really want to help improve the encyclopaedia? I'm sorry, what? How have I literally not been trying to exactly do that this entire time when I've been putting in ridiculous hours of research and thought for my attempts to include Indigenous content, even taking on board other peoples concerns and trying to include them in some way, only be told "no, not acceptable"? You've literally just branded my previous Indigenous information as not an improvement and my efforts a complete waste of time, by saying that. Wow, thanks.
"could instead take himself to our Botany Bay article" - Did that.
"and then find other places which were significant to the Indigenous people at the time of colonisation and beyond, and add in the local names and perspective" - Did that too, it got erased almost every single time.
"That kind of thing helps tell a more complete story"... so does including information that other prominent sources do, but I think it's obvious we all know how that goes.
I don't get why there's no respect for WP:DONTREVERT, you guys are being presented with solid information backed by credible sources, and removing it rather than finding a way to build on it and improve it.
"Bunjiwunyawunya" - this is disrespectful in so many ways.
Please tell me why I should bother continuing to attempt to contribute, because right now I'm seeing every reason not to. Who knew I'd go into this week enthusiastic about making a difference, only to be shot down to the point of physical exhaustion... you guys sure know how to collaborate & make a guy feel welcome.
Skyring, I'm not sure how you read any suggestion of contravening WP:PLACE into my comment, and there's no need for the condescending tone. I've been on here long enough to understand the basics. It was about mention of Indigenous names within the text, in the context of history, not about using the names throughout the article, or as the article name. As I have commented on that History of Australia talk page, I think that there is adequate justification for mentioning the Indigenous name of Botany Bay, perhaps, as Mitch has suggested in his comment, with more about the local people and (if the info is available in a good source), which language groups referred to the bay by that name. The geographic location at which the boats landed is quite a notable feature of the beginning of colonisation, after all, and it did have a history before they got there.
And instead of castigating GadigalGuy for his "zeal", I would be commending him for his persistence and willingness to stick around, learn the ropes, and contribute usefully, in the face of some fairly tough pushback, and a sometimes abrasive and disrespectful tone, from mainly one editor. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you could run me through how, precisely, you see GadigalGuy's suggested wording as compliant with WP:PLACE? I understand precisely what he wants to do, and there's no need to mansplain that bit. I'm interested in what is informing your thoughts. --Pete (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Your response looks like a classic straw man to me. WP Place "describes conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places, and for the use of place names in Wikipedia articles". The discussion is not about the use of an alternative place name throughout the article, it is about a single mention of an alternative, prior, name, with context, in an historical article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
My response is serious, and if you could explain your thinking in detail on this point, it would be helpful. Using the text of WP:PLACE, rather than any paraphrase, please. --Pete (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Skyring/Pete, you say to Laterthanyouthink: "Perhaps you could run me through how, precisely, you see GadigalGuy's suggested wording as compliant with WP:PLACE"
If you are so adamant that it is not compliant (despite the fact that the guidelines say not to be so stringent in applying these things so that information like this can actually be included here too)...
How about instead of shutting every attempt down with "no, WP:PLACE doesn't allow it" which does nothing towards improving and making use of the information, and is an action in & of itself not compliant with WP:NPOV - how about you actually come up with a way that it is compliant for WP:PLACE - suggest the exact wording that can be used within this article (and don't palm it off with the excuse of going to another article again because that is just shutting the information down rather than attempting to include that information in an article on the History of Australia - which the National Museum of Australia, NSW State Library and so on manage to successfully include - and shutting it down doesn't comply with WP:NPOV - you even acknowledge this below about the "lack of balance".)
Put yourself on our side, in support of the information, and come up with a way that it is compliant with that stringent view of a non-mandatory guideline, seeing as you seem to have the final say on the interpretation of the guidelines - if you know how it should be applied to comply, apply it. It is honestly so exhausting to be on this side attempting to support the information, in the face of your non-budging opposition, like facing a brick wall, while you've got it easy on the opposing side because you can just simply say "nope, not good enough, try again" to anything you disagree with - hardly a fair attempt at collaborating in the spirit of Wikipedia's intentions.
It's almost comedically ironic that the opposition citing one guideline for opposing is making no attempt to respect other guidelines that are conveniently ignored, like the one which states that "all significant views should appear". If you genuinely have good intentions, work with me, make an attempt to argue from the supporting side for once. Please.
It's not about being on one side or the other. We work together. I've given an outline of how to include Indigenous place names, and that is to include them as part of material that is about Indigenous Australians, rather than the British. Nobody is saying that Kamay is incorrect or poorly sourced, but there needs to be some context for its use - or any other name. I think that the article begins rather abruptly with colonisation and the goings-on in London, and it is jarring to have the Indigenous name dropped into the talk of planning and proposing. There is no evidence that any of these British folk knew the name at that time.
Perhaps we could have a brief opening section to set the stage, so that the subsequent material makes more sense. Briefly describe Cook's voyage of exploration, noting that Banks and the other scientists found Australia of intense interest and gave the name Botany Bay to mark the scientific discoveries made and recorded there.
Then briefly describe the existing inhabitants of Australia, their tribes, languages, lifestyle, reactions to Cook (which of course would be from Cook's reports) in enough detail to show that the First Fleet was heading for a land already inhabited by people with culture and traditions, enjoying the freedom of their land. Here is where we can give their name or names for the places that Cook had noted in his reports.
This gives a counterpoint to the deliberations in London, and as the narrative shifts there the reader is contemplating the impending disaster of sending a bunch of convicts and soldiers and administrators with a firm grasp of the concept and practice of global imperialism to a land full of people who knew nothing about this.
I think two or three paragraphs would be enough. A brief recap of Cook's voyage, and the delight of his scientists. Then some information about existing residents, how many, where they lived, how they lived, what languages they spoke, how long they had been there. And then some material on the interactions between Cook's expedition and the locals. Violence, kidnapping, gifts, conversations? Remember that Cook had spent recent time in New Zealand where he had had good reason to worry about the Maori, so he may have been a little wary of Australian Aboriginal people.
See what I mean? Instead of half a sentence to jarringly carry an Indigenous name, we have two paragraphs with enough heft to make such a use natural and appropriate. --Pete (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Skyring/Pete, you say: "It's not about being on one side or the other. We work together."
You know that's exactly what I've been asking for right, like surely my constant frustration and expressions of such would have made it obvious that wasn't really happening when I asked multiple times "I want your opinion/re-word it/how would you phrase it/etc" with no response except for "no, WP:PLACE."... There was a lot of push but not much pull - until now.
Re: Your suggestion above (in full, from "Perhaps we could have a brief opening section to set the stage" through to & including "so he may have been a little wary of Australian Aboriginal people.")
Yes. All of this, yes. This is exactly what I've been wanting to see from you, as you've described a way that the Indigenous places can be included - although I'd caution the presentation of some facts... it almost sounds like Cook was a nice guy who was just "wary", when he shot at locals 3 times before even getting off the boat as he describes in his own Journal... keep in mind, we do know his not-so-nice behaviour elsewhere from other records...
So, I say 'go for it', but I'll throw in a couple of ideas that you can build on when you put it together.
As long as it is a fair representation on both sides and doesn't make my ancestors look like primitive, violent savages, when they were fearful of the British (as described by Tench as "shy"), and rightfully so, they were literally chased down, shot at and "captured" by people who were actually convicted, violent criminals, as documented in Journals (like this one from the NSW Archives) and of course the whole penal colony thing which tends to get downplayed in recounts of history, you know... like maybe they were wary, and how they're portrayed in the current article as a bunch of hard working country-builders, despite the convicted criminal status and all.
I think its safe to say my ancestors were "a little wary" too, and acted defensively "shaking spears" not in an offensive attack, but to defend country (much in the same way we would say a foreign military entering Australia without permission were the instigators acting offensively, and any subsequent actions by our military would be in defence). So, that's something that I see so often gets skewed against Indigenous Peoples, portrayed as violent when we wouldn't say the same for Australia's military acting in the same way now... it should be fairly represented, and the Journals (ie. Tench - "Shy" & that NSW Archive record) provide the evidence you'd want to do that.
On the other side of the continent they thought the arrivals were Djanga, I'd say that's worthy of a mention as it shows an Indigenous perspective & is recorded.
It's interesting to note that the issue of a lack of Indigenous representation in the article was mentioned 13 years ago with not much progress evident since... I'd say it's about time and I'm glad I stumbled on this article, because evidently the ball is now rolling on fixing it.
When I say that we work together, I mean the whole Wikipedia community, and that is why I mention wikipolicy documents, because they represent the whole community working together to draw up rules that work and have worked for many years.
Trying to litigate the behaviour of people who died two centuries ago is rather pointless. Cook had left a land where the locals wanted to kill and eat he and his men, and he was a military commander far from home. A naval officer of that time - and indeed any time - is expected to safeguard his ship and his crew. It's easy to look back in hindsaight and say people should have done this or not done that, but rather pointless. We have to live with the consequences of what actually happened, not what might have been.
Interesting that you speak of your ancestors. Those who claim Aboriginality also overwhelmingly have European or Asian ancestry as well. None of us get to pick our genes, and while I have no way of knowing your own circumstances, I do wonder about people who try to choose their ancestry, much like those who like to say they are descended from royalty. Sure, given enough centuries everybody is, but also from farmers and shoemakers and soldiers and miners and priests.
I suggest that the Gen Y people using English to communicate on the internet may share genes with those who lived here before the British, as well as those who arrived later, but lifestyles and cultures have changed beyond all recognition. Some of my ancestors were undoubtedly Vikings one way or another, but I speak no Old Norse, I feel no urge to row longboats, and I cannot say I am partial to mead.
Probably best to abandon any sort of racial or cultural imperative in writing historical articles on the web. My distant ancestors would probably boot me out of the village for being an insufferable sissy. Possibly my not-so-distant ancestors as well; I'm not as much into driving utes and drinking kegs of beer as some. I can write about Vikings and kings without actually being either in real life.
Nevertheless, I trust that we can all write our bit of this encyclopaedia with truth and integrity in mind. --Pete (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think I conveyed my previous response well - I'm not meaning that we should be litigating or judging the past when we write about it. Just saying that it is important to be mindful of the way we portray it to avoid implicit biases we ourselves hold which then skew the narrative (which also has real world consequences, but that's an added point)... the choice of wording is vital.
Far too often the choice of wording presents the narrative as though Indigenous people back then were violent lawless people and the convicts were relatively innocent victims of this violence who were bewildered that Indigenous people wouldn't follow their rules, so then that ends up being the only perspective of the narrative portrayed despite the fact that the convicts were literally violent lawless people (ie. convicted criminals who broke the law and were unsuitable to look after at home so they shipped them off to be someone else's problem on the other side of the planet), people that the Indigenous were fearful of, and had vast cultural differences with - and records like that NSW Archive one & Tench's journal support this.
For example, the choice of wording in the current article's (sub-par) resistance section leads with "Aboriginal reactions to the sudden arrival of British settlers were varied, but often hostile", which has connotations that the Indigenous were not shy, instead that they were the instigators of violence, completely devoid of the fact that journal page upon journal page mentions how they were scared of the convicts and got shot at, there were orders to capture them, their tools & resources stolen and so on.
It then goes on to say "Reynolds quotes numerous writings by settlers who, in the first half of the nineteenth century, described themselves as living in fear and even in terror due to attacks by Aboriginal people determined to kill them or drive them off their lands." and Settlers in turn often reacted to Aboriginal resistance with great violence" - even in the section about resistance, it barely even mentions what they were resisting, or that the Indigenous Peoples lived in fear (too?), nothing about Governor Macquarie's orders... instead it talks about the settlers feelings (like way to make it about them again guys, haven't they already had enough airtime) just a blatant continuation of that lawless savage vs innocent convict narrative. Settlers reacted? The resistance by the Indigenous was the reaction... That entire section is honestly poorly written and an example of what I mean with how we need to be cautious and fair with how we portray the events and our choice of words.
I know you didn't write that so it's not on you, but it actually amazes me that in 13 years no one has picked up on how tone-deaf that section is. I appreciate that they tried but... yeah I can't say much more for it.
In my first part of this response I mentioned that it has real world consequences (as an add on, not solely related to the article at hand, but more in general across all forms of information sharing). What I mean is through the poor choice of words, that continuation of the narrative then spills over today where that stereotype of violent lawlessness remains & is detrimental because we get followed around shops out of a lack of trust, and even having people say things like "you can't just do whatever you like and ignore the rules. You do appreciate that there are rules and procedures here?" even when we are doing our best to follow those rules, not be lawless - because the expectation from what history tells us is that the group is a bunch of "violent & lawless people attacking innocent hard working settlers", when a lot of the time that just wasn't the case... shocking that something on the internet/in books can have an impact on real life right? I think everyone underestimates the power of words, even I do at times.
So, basically, the main point I was getting at with those examples previously is that I agree with you, we shouldn't be litigating/making judgements, we should be as objective as possible and show what both sides experienced without rose-coloured glasses on, it's an uncomfortable truth but it should be told with as much objectivity and fairness as we can achieve, so we don't have sections about resistance and the perspective of how they were the victims, making them not look like the victims and somehow being all about the settlers feelings. That's about it. Have I explained that better this time? Do you understand what I'm getting at?
Anyway, I'm looking forward to what you put together with what you've suggested. Sounds like you've got a good idea.
If something's wrong, fix it. I have a side gig as an editor of a fairly large publication, and suggesting ways for the experts and creatives to craft a better product is a large part of my job.
Wikipedia has its own house style and ways of doing things. You weren't following the rules when you started, and I detected more than a trace of righting great wrongs. Tbe European colonisation of Australia was pretty much like any aspect of human endeavour regardless of time and place. Those with the power and resources try to get more of both, often at the expense of those who are short-changed to begin with. The British colonists here had better weapons, tactics, communication, and above all the access to a great imperial power. In New Zealand, the locals pretty much won all their battles, but they didn't ultimately prevail, and that was because the British Empire had ambassadors and mass media all over the world, and the Maori didn't. The British Empire at the height of its powers wasn't about to broadcast that it was a pushover, and got outfought and outwitted by people who laughed while they did it.
Wikipedia isn't a vehicle to correct the sins of the past. Nor is it a place to distort the truth. We present various points of view in proportion to their reliabliity and usage. The Flat Earth Society doesn't get equal time with modern astronomy, and place names used by only a tiny fraction don't get equal or better prominence than the common names. Telling the story of the evils of colonisation in Australia is a valid part of the 1788-1850 article, but dealing with any latter-day consequences is not. There are other articles covering that aspect and I ecourage you to find them, contribute to them, or even create them if they are lacking and you can find good sources.
Just don't go fighting great crusading cultural battles, like the Bible-literalists trying to change years to AD, and inssrting caveats into articles about dinosaurs and stuff. Or those endlessly insisting their brand of politics is the bee's knees and the other guys are satanic child-eaters. One quickly runs out of patience for the NSW Labor Right. --Pete (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
GadigalGuy, sorry you feel that way. If you look through my first post in this section, you'll see why your initial contributions were inappropriate. Changing the names of capital cities in a history article, putting the Indigenous names first and the modern English names in brackets) is just confusing. Having a neutral point of view doesn't mean we strive for scrupulous impartiality and objectivity; it means we look at our sources and give appropriate weight to various points of view. It is not ideal, it is not fair, it is not how I would arrange the world, but the situation is that in the first century of European colonisation of the Australian continent the only voices that ring out authentically are those of the Europeans, and in the few instances where they troubled themselves to look into the lives of those who were here before their arrival, those voices are filtered through European eyes and minds. It is simply not possible to tell the story in an even-handed impartial manner. And we are not going to do that by throwing in a few Indigenous names and pretending that evens the playing field in any meaningful sense.
What would help a lot, is to use modern sources to tell some of the story from the point of view of those who were here. We know that there were 750 000 residents before European colonisation, and that by the time of Federation over a century later, there were estimated to be around 90 000 having Indigenous ancestors. Telling the story of disease, dispossession, violence, injustice, and all the rest of the evils of colonisation that resulted in that horrific genocide is a legitimate part of the history, well-sourced, and a counter to the triumphalist nature of colonial history books. If we have significant material about the First Australians, then using the names they used is natural and appropriate. Putting the Indigenous name of Botany Bay into a sentence about Joseph Banks makes no sense. Using it in a description of the pre-existing society and how that was impacted by colonisation would be entirely appropriate. I don't know that Botany Bay/Kamay is the best community to use for that purpose.
You are entirely right about the lack of balance. It's never going to be entirely even in coverage - how could it be? - but we can certainly work on making it better than it is.
Your initial contributions to the Batemans Bay and Clyde River articles were inappropriate because they violated WP:PLACE. It is not enough to have a good source and Just lump that well-sourced information into an article. Wikipedia has ways of presentiong information and if you put some work into understanding how this is done then you will be a lot more successful in your efforts and as a consequence we will all benefit. Your subsequent contributions to those articles are much better, more or less in line with policy.
Sorry if you felt offended by "Bunjiwunyawunya". I was looking for a name that sounded indigenous but had no actual real meaning. I think it comes from a novel title. No offence intended. --Pete (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Skyring/Pete you say: "Having a neutral point of view doesn't mean we strive for scrupulous impartiality and objectivity; it means we look at our sources and give appropriate weight to various points of view."
Yes, and when other near-identical articles talking about the events of Colonisation, from prominent sources, are all on the same page about acknowledging the existence of Indingeous Peoples and Indigenous involvement in the events, featuring Indigenous references prominently alongside European references - but then the article here features absolutely zero mention of it alongside the European content, not even appearing to make an attempt to acknowledge the existence of Indigenous peoples within that section on Colonisation, this article is not in compliance with WP:NPOV, there is no appropriate weight given to the point of view that features prominently and in unity by the National Museum of Australia, NSW State Library and so on.
There certainly should not be zero reference to Kamay when the other prominent sources are almost flooded with references to it. And there most certainly shouldn't be virtually no reference to Indigenous existence in that section.
It almost makes the article here appear as an actual attempt for cultural erasure in support of the policies I'm sure we are well aware of that aimed (& still do, eg. Juuken Gorge erasure of history) to wipe us out through destruction of Indigenous language and records - which I'd expect is not it's intention, but it does have that effect.
You say: "If we have significant material about the First Australians"
There is no 'if' about it, the material does exists in the form of those other prominent sources, and even things like the Journals of the First Fleet which contain information that is entirely appropriate within that section on Colonisation. Heck, if the French can get a decent mention in that section, surely the people that have existed here forever can too, rather than a not-even half hearted attempt of 7 words in the timeline.
You say: "Your initial contributions to the Batemans Bay and Clyde River articles were inappropriate because they violated WP:PLACE. It is not enough to have a good source and Just lump that well-sourced information into an article."
WP:DONTREVERT clearly says that reverting that 'well-sourced' and evidently useful information (given that you acknowledge that subsequent contributions of the same material in different sections were fine), is not on. That either a note should be left to fix its use, or just to leave it there until you can get around to fixing it yourself, not destroying the information by flat-out removing it with no attempt to make use of any one of the alternate suggestions on the WP:DONTREVERT page. If we are going to be applying guidelines like WP:PLACE stringently despite their clear intent on avoiding that level of inflexibility, then we can not pick and choose which guidelines we adhere to. The opposing side can & needs to do better with regard to WP:DONTREVERT.
You say: "Sorry if you felt offended by "Bunjiwunyawunya"."
It was no different to going up to a Chinese person and imitating their language, I'm sure you understand what I mean - completely inappropriate. In the context, it also came across as demeaning to the effort I've made to contribute. Although there was probably not that intent behind it, it had the effect and you should be mindful of that in future.
You say: "You are entirely right about the lack of balance."
So as you are aware of that, how are you going to put your supporting shoes on, coming around to this side of the brick wall and joining me in trying to fix that? Are you going to proactively find things that can fix it and include them in the article? Or is the heavy lifting going to be left to the Indigenous guy to include Indigenous content (noting that it's unlikely a French guy was wheeled in to write & include that content).
Again, I apologise for how this would be coming across, I don't know how to explain that frustration without literally just saying it
Noted. Some of these points addressed above. Perhaps further discussion on how to improve the specific article cound be taken to the article's talk page and the regulars here left to return to their slumbers? --Pete (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I will just chime in to publicly say thank you to GadigalGuy for having the patience to continue to politely respond to what you appear to think is a very biased record. Unfortunately, I am not steeped in NSW history as my ancestors came to South Australia and I may also be just as "tone deaf" as I have very little family history of any encounters with the indigenous inhabitants of the lands my ancestors (arrived between 1838 and 1876) settled on. I can only assume that there must have been some.
I agree with the general principle that the first white settlers did not "arrive at Sydney". They might have arrived at somewhere with another name, or on the shores of somewhere, or at "the place that would become Sydney", but it wasn't "Sydney" before they got there. Thank you to everyone who is working to help to improve Wikipedia by more accurately expressing the reality which was experienced quite differently by different groups of people. Specific changes to particular articles can be on the talk pages of those articles, but there is also a case for helping the wider editing community to see and respond to our unrecognised biases. I edit a lot of place articles, and am likely just as guilty of tone deafness. --Scott DavisTalk10:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Request
Hi, i just found the categories that indicate a user is located in what is now known as Victoria. I was wondering if there are, or can someone create, categories to indicate the indigenous land on which we edit and a picture that says "This user lives on land now known as Victoria" as an acknowledgement of indigenous rights. Thanks
DrMushEa (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I suspect that it might be better to have text that says "this user lives on Foo country" (possibly "... Foo country, now known as Victoria") where Foo is the specific group, of which there are apparently many in Victoria. I'm not familiar with Victorian groups, but in Perth, Western Australia I would say either "Whadjuk country" or "Noongar country" (the former being more specific). Mitch Ames (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The categories are usually part of a userbox (see Wikipedia:Userboxes) which an editor can choose to place on their user page. There are some editors who can create them for you on request if you are not comfortable with creating it yourself. As per Mitch's suggestion, it's probably worth setting up a template to adapt to multiple lands rather than creating a single one for Victoria. --Canley (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
One should consider the possibility that such a userbox contravenes WP:UP#PROMO and WP:UBCR, because it could be construed as "advocacy" or "promotion of [a] viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia". Mitch Ames (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
"now known as <state>" might be advocacy. If you would make a statement of acknowledgement of country before giving a presentation about Wikipedia, I see no reason not to do it in a userbox. Since the initial comment was specifically about Victoria, I understand there is some dispute about the traditional owners of parts of what is now Melbourne, so depending precisely where someone lives, there could be a degree of advocacy in choosing one of the claimants (who are all part of the Kulin nation). --Scott DavisTalk03:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
An IP user made a request on my page to reduce the level of protection of Craig Kelly - you can read it at User_talk:Orderinchaos#Lowering_the_protection_on_Craig_Kelly's_page. It seems like an appropriate enough request, but as I've lost touch with how things are done here these days and so can't judge if they are correct, I'd much prefer someone who hasn't to look at the request and action it (or not) as need be. It's currently on autoconfirmed protection until 5 May, which I'd set on 5 Feb. Thanks. Orderinchaos10:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Help with article about ecommerce company founded in Australia
Chesham Street and expiry of copyright for 2-D works
Hi all. I have written an article - Chesham Street - and subsequently uploaded an image for the article at File:Chesham Street (1910) George W Lambert.jpg. I have uploaded it at enwiki as a non-free item but I suspect it may actually be free use as the artist died in 1930. The work is part of the NGA collection - see here. Perhaps one of the copyright and free use experts may be able to see if it would be better placed at Commons? Thanks -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I have really bad memories of discussions about freedom of panorama with certain overseas-based editors at Commons who think they know everything about Australian copyright law (but don't have a clue). The Arts Law Centre of Australia would seem to suggest the copyright term is 70 years from publication, but the NGA has a rights and permissions officer that might be able to help clarify what the law is? Deus et lex (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Australian copyright expired 50 years after the artist death, ie end of 1980. The law was changed in 2005, but this already expired. US should recognise this expiry and not renewed it. So it should be fine for commons or here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
So working on this page and was wondering why the Australian flag was red through for this particular Olympics compared to the rest of them. HawkAussie (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Could another editor two have a look at Tom Sheridan (footballer). Several different IPs have been adding a nickname of "Horse Teeth" without any reference (the ref for "Train" does not mention "Horse Teeth"). I've been reverting, but hit WP:3RR. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
If only I had a dollar for every time I've failed to notice the other worksheets in an Excel file :-) Kerry (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Kabi/Gubbi Gubbi - new editor issue
I've commented on the talk page, but really don't have the time/energy/brain today to pursue the details of what this person is trying to say and do. Is there anyone here with more experience in the subject, particularly SE Qld Aboriginal peoples, and/or a better idea about how to manage this kind of dispute with a new editor? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Laterthanyouthink:WP:NPOV tells us that we should present both sides of the argument with reliable sources in support of each. However this becomes difficult to do if there are two separate articles. Assuming the sources for both POVs seem reliable, I would suggest having one article called Gubbi Gubbi and Kabi people and present both POVs there. Naturally Gubbi Gubbi people and Kabi people would redirect there. Let the reader decide. If you were dealing with moderately experienced editors with reliable sources, this might work. However, we have an inexperienced editor who appears to have a confirmation bias based on "I just got explained by Kabi elders" (i.e oral sources) being mentioned a few times. Unfortunately such editors do crash-and-burn, but ideally we'd like to try to avoid this. I will make this suggestion at Talk:Gubbi Gubbi people#Kabi Kabi are a different tribe. Kerry (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello WP:Australia members. I'm just over from the Cricket Project. We're looking for editors to take pictures of cricket grounds which have hosted major matches at international/domestic level. Here are some cricket grounds in Australia which we currently do not have photos for. It would be greatly appreciated if any project members living locally to these grounds were to dust off their cameras and take some photos! Thanks in advance. StickyWicket (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This Aboriginal heritage site, in the form of a large stone arrangement, has been very recently found, like 5 April yesterday, to have been damaged with "up to 60 metres" of stones removed. Its WP page could possibly use a few eyes on it. Pageviews have already increased significantly.
I did a basic update to the page, as it hadn't been edited in yet. Someone my want to look more into it, though accurate information may be hard to come by this early. ABC source I used [8]. 220ofßorg16:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm opposed to this sort of thing: it evades consensual editing and maintaining such a page is OR. Is there any objection to fwd'ing this to whatever the appropriate forum is? ~ cygnis insignis14:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm concerned that it exists, not an uncommon view in the light of compliance with core policies and actual guidelines, any specific concerns seem redundant. ~ cygnis insignis12:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Palm Island, Queensland, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Whiteguru (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I included that the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shooting attended this school and provided about him information relevant to the school. This was removed because "the article on GHS is not a proxy for the early life of one of its pupils"
I didn't provide the perpetrator's early life as a whole. I specifically left out a lot of information and just provided information relevant to the school.
I believe to have no mention of him attending the school at all is whitewashing unpleasant information to defend the school's image. This is someone who committed New Zealand's deadliest massacre, is well documented he attended the school, and is well documented that some incidents took place at the school both in media outlets and in New Zealand's Royal Commission of Inquiry.
He should be mentioned as a sentence in some sort of notable alumni section. All that other information is not really relevant to an article on the school he attended. Steelkamp (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The GHS wiki article does not include a notable alumni section. It would be unfair and inappropriate to mention that Tarrant was their only ex-student of note. However, it may be possible to start a notable alumni section, including people such as Bill Weiley, and then include Tarrant. WWGB (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I'd like a few more pairs of eyes (and a better-functioning brain than I have today) on this change and other similar changes made to three other articles by the same IP. See Indigenous Australians talk page for the discussion. The whole topic is obviously one of a good deal of scholarly research, and I just don't know how best to represent what is currently known and the no doubt many and various schools of thought on such a complicated topic in a general article of this nature. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I apologize for misinterpreting the study and the spam into several related articles. I also found several other studies with contradicting evidence (such as Boer et al. 2018). Thus I self reverted my misleading additions. Sorry for the mess. I also read WP:SCIRS, which suggests that only teritery studies are used, and no primary research, especially in genetic topics and with only one single study. Have a nice day.213.162.73.127 (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, is there any kind of centralised discussion or noticeboard for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples? getting feed back and contributions from Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples who participate in this project? Taking into account the maxim "nothing about us without us", I think it is essential that we engage Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander editors in articles about Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples: cultures, languages and history. I think input from the people whose culture is being written about and discussed would be of the greatest benefit to the project. There are also numerous ethical and moral issues around colonisation and racism that obviously require first nations input. I'm sure there are Aboriginal subject matter experts that contribute to this project, would be great if they could be involved in fact checking, cultural sensitivity etc. Bacondrum04:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I am a university student who is currently working on the "Chevert Expedition of 1875" stub. I just wanted to ask if fellow Wikipedians interested in WikiProjects Australia could potentially take a look at my article when I upload it (around May 17-31, 2021). Thank you Jrom5498 (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Ask again here when you are ready and I am sure people will help. Is this the Uni Sydney course? Kerry (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. CMD (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Request for peer review help
Hi Everyone! I hope you are all doing well and staying safe during these times! Apologize to bother and posting a random request. I have just started to work on a stub (Fontainea Venosa)and had added some sections. Knowing your expertise, I would love if you can help me to review and left a comment on what I can do to improve my edits. I hope that this is okay, but no pressure if you are busy. That is completely fine and understandable :)
Hope to hear from you soon. The article is Fontainea Venosa
Dorothy Gordon (Australian actress): Student project
Hi there! I'm a student new to Wikipedia and I am contributing to the Dorothy Gordon (Australian actress) page as part of my course. I have made significant changes and will be editing the page over the next few weeks, and would really appreciate any feedback and/or advice to improve the article!
Jolisjoujou (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Help with Lomandra Multiflora assessment for university
Hi there, I'm a university student and for my course I need to improve a stub. I have added new sections to Lomandra Multiflora, I would really appreciate any feedback and I will continue to add more onto the page until the 31st of May. It would be great if I could get the stub improved to a C or B level ! Thank you so much. Rachelw07 (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
University Student
Hi everyone, I am a student currently enrolled in a subject which requires the improvement of a stub article. I am writing on 'Caroline Archer', an Aboriginal Australian activist. I would really appreciate if someone could assist me in finding more information about her. As well as your advice and feedback over the coming weeks as our edits and contributions will make up our final grades for the subject. Thank you so much! Shay0608 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Shay0608
Hi. Probably also worth posting at Talk:Caroline Archer just in case someone has that page on their watchlist. And please have a look at WP:TALKNEW, particularly the part about, "Start new topics at the bottom of the page: If you put a post at the top of the page, it is confusing and can also get easily overlooked. The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page". Meticulo (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Thank you very much for your help, I've taken a look at Australian Dictionary of Biography as well as Trove and have found some good sources. Was just wondering if you knew the Creative Commons licensing regarding Trove images and sources if I were to use a clipping of a newspaper article from 1978 as an image in the Wikipedia stub? Shay0608 (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Things on Trove have all kinds of licenses, mostly not CC-BY, as they represent what libraries in Australia have. A newspaper image will expire its copyright about 70 years after publication, if they own copyright. A government photo expires copyright after 50 years. So crown copyright from 1970 is now available. However for a dead person you can make the case of WP:fair use, as it is unlikely a freely licensed photo is available. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi fellow Wikipedians, I just wanted to pop in and say that I am currently adding information into the "Chevert Expedition of 1875" stub and will continue to do so until 31 May. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could take a look at it and provide some feedback. Thank you Jrom5498 (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for the feedback. I will definitely be taking this into consideration. Just to let you know, I have added (and for the next few days) will keep on adding new information to the stub. It would be great if you (and other Wikipedians who are interested) could take a look at the progress for the next couple of days. Jrom5498 (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
University Student Seeking Feedback
Hi there! As part of a university subject, I've been editing the article on R.J.B. Bosworth for the past few months. I'd really appreciate any feedback you can give me (on the article talk page or on my talk page) about the style and content of the article, and on ways to improve it. Thanks! — Preceding undated comment added 07:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Advice on University Assigment
Hi everyone, I am a student currently enrolled in a subject which requires the improvement of 'John Aitken (biologist)' article. I had put all the changes to the Wikipedia page John Aitken (biologist) and would really appreciate if I could hear advice and feedback over my edits and contributions. Thank you --Tempstent (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey, hope you're doing well. Like a lot of the other submissions I am also a university student. A lot of us are currently completing a major assignment in a course related to editing Wikipedia articles so please be patient with us as you may see a lot of requests. I am currently trying to improve the article Honest History from its stub status so I would really appreciate some feedback which can hopefully guide my article to at least a start class.
Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure
I have been making edits to this article Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact as part of an University assignment. My objective is to improve this article from its status as a stub, and also improve its assessment rating on this WIkiproject.
This article primarily discusses a proposed impact structure in the middle of Australia, and the evidence for this theory. The theory was coined and popularised by Daniel Connelly.
I would like this article to be reviewed by members of the Australian Wikiproject.
Hi everyone. There have been many requests for article reviews related to assignments at the University of Sydney here and at other WikiProject talk pages. It's great to see students making useful contributions and engaging with the Wikipedia community! Just as an FYI so nobody is disappointed, Wikipedia tends to have more people asking for reviews than it has people volunteering to review articles. If you don't all get a review from an experienced editor before the course ends, that would be pretty normal and doesn't mean you've done anything wrong. Chances are you did a lot of things right. Take care, and we hope you continue to contribute :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, indeed - I second Clayoquot's sentiments! I don't visit this page on a regular basis, and have just seen the number of requests outstanding. I will try to have a look at some of them and offer any tips or comments that I can, but it could take a while. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
It's very kind of you to offer to look at them. To update everyone, following a discussion at the Education noticeboard, the Sydney U co-ordinator said she would ask instructors to ask students to stop asking for reviews and to remove existing requests from noticeboards. Implementation of that decision seems to be slow, so I'm going to just archive the remaining requests that I see. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Kate Baker article
I have just submitted the Kate Baker article as a GA nomination. Other than tweaks I think I’m finished with the article. I am genuinely surprised at how much material I was able to find on Baker, the AuDB only refers really to her devotion of Furphy. I suspect that is because it was written some time ago - the entry is way before the author wrote a book on Joseph Furphy and found a lot more info on Baker!
I wrote that to summarise a discussion that occurred on some other article Talk page. I'm ok with how the template currently works. It takes you to a brief summary of that census with the link to a more fullsome article sitting there ready to click (where we have one, e.g. 2016). We know that most people reading of Wikipedia is not of whole articles but of the lede and some specific sections, so it's a fair bet that most readers are only looking for the basic facts of that census, not necessarily a full article. The current setup gives them both options. Kerry (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I have posted a discussion about a controversy section content on the article for Talk:James Cook University#Controversy section proposals June 2021 I think members of this project might be very interested in this discussion of proposed changes. These matters concern topics that I think may be too controversial for the ‘Request Edit” noticeboard, which is only for straightforward requests. I want to disclose that I have a conflict of interest because I work for James Cook University. Thanks Mrssquiggle (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Is anyone keen to make an article on Australian academic and constitutional law expert Anne Twomey? There is a disambig link on the Anne Twomey page (which refers to an American actress) that says to look at Love v Commonwealth but that has nothing to do with her (other than the fact that she commented on the decision). Deus et lex (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the first time I've gotten into an edit conflict while creating an article! That's a good start. Without meaning any disrespect to George Williams (lawyer), who seems to be Australia's other leading constitutional law expert, it's suggestive that we've had an article on this man since 2010 but only started the article on Twomey today. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry - hope I didn't waste your time too much. Thanks for creating the disambig page, hopefully I've moved all relevant links to the Australian Anne Twomey to the right page. Deus et lex (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh good, Deus et lex and Nick-D, thanks for that. I've come across her name a few times when editing, so she's been on the radar but my list is too long at the moment to volunteer that one (hint: see Indigenous Australians and ABC above, for two of the bigger priorities!). I'll do a find later to add links to the new article, if not done before I get there. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
It looks like she's already past fifty incoming links! Many of them are citation {{{author-link}}} parameters, which is probably a strong indication of notability! Thanks to whoever has been creating these links. --Scott DavisTalk10:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome - I'm pleased that people have started an article on her as she's a well respected author, but her books on the monarchy, reserve powers and the constitution of New South Wales fill some real gaps in the academic literature & hence are widely cited. --Find bruce (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Who knows anything about TV broadcasting, and/or ABC TV?
Over the past few days I've been trying to fix, restructure and update various articles relating to the ABC, as there was much that had fallen out of date and various other problems. I'm still working on ABC Television (Australian TV network) article, but one of my questions that I'm finding hard to find clear answers about are the various local stations, e.g. ABS (TV station) in Adelaide (see the "State-based programming" section in the main article). From some preliminary skimming, in particular this non-RS but probably fairly reliable wiki source called Logopedia, the various links from this page seem to indicate that those three-letter names pertaining to the capital cities were joined by a host of regional names, and its not clear to me when/if any of them fell out of use. And I don't fully understand, e.g., the relationship of all of those regional call signals to the main Adelaide one... I'm not across how the various types of transmission and repeaters work, so if anyone who is more technically or ABC-historically knowledgeable than me, I'd appreciate some discussion on the main (network) talk page so I can work out what to do with each of those articles.
Ah, I've just noticed that ItsPugle has answered my call to their talk page and commented on that article talk page, so that's a start. I will post something further there tomorrow. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, The Drover's Wife. I noticed that they had been used a lot in the main ABC articles. Only the later one (2006) is available in my local library system, so I've requested it and will see what it says when it gets to me. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Laterthanyouthink @The Drover's Wife: I reckon that source probably won't be too helpful for this in terms of the current state of broadcasting for ABC TV just because of its age, but it might be useful to earmark it on the talk page for History of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation too. I also think that for the second volume, Whose ABC?, we're going to need to be super careful around attributing some of the statements since that volume is about the political context etc. I'm also able to access both volumes, as well as some published reviews of the first and one of the second, through a university library, so just let me know if you want me to check something etc (and I'll try and add some content from the literature when I have a moment). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, ItsPugle. I rather doubt that they will include the level of detail about the TV channels, but thanks for the offer and if anything occurs to me before I lay my hands on the 2nd one, I'll ping you on the relevant talk page. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
The infobox template for Australian MPs seems to have been edited such that it has removed in many cases the electorate that the member represents - e.g. Tony Burke should have "Member of the Australian Parliament for Watson" but it just says "Member of the Australian Parliament". This seems to be an extensive issue. Deus et lex (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I noticed yesterday that it didn't work as I had expected it would, but I was making a new infobox and had limited time so didn't realise it was a change. --Scott DavisTalk10:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
It was a dud change to a subsidiary template. Once alerted, the person who made it has fixed the problem and the constituency is displayed again. --Scott DavisTalk23:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn't fix it. I narrowed down which edit broke it, and pinged the author before I went to bed in the thread you mentioned above. It was fixed by the time I got up. --Scott DavisTalk13:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I chanced to read this article.... I see it rated as 'Start' class. I think it should be rated higher; reading the class definitions I suggest 'B'. Is it OK to just change it???? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I would like to start a short start class article about the Labor Party’s newspaper The Labor Call. Apart from the start and finish dates, I can’t find much info on it, like who started it and why, other than it seems to have followed on from The Tocsin. Does anyone know where to find sources? Or better yet, anyone want to take a stab at starting the article? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I've been on Wikipedia for a long time and there has always been a problem with the images we use to illustrate the biographical articles of politicians. Unless we can get an appropriate license for use, nearly all of the best photographs are out of our reach. Media outlets, for example, have some classic photographs, but of course they don't make these freely available.
Former regime chief (official)
You would think that official government portraits would be the go: they are shot professionally, in a studio, with a quality camera, they make the subject look good and they have the approval of all parties. But the copyright restrictions on these things put them out of our grasp.
So we are often forced to use amateur snaps taken with a phone at a party fundraiser or bridge opening or whatever, or something from an official visit to the US where all government images are public domain, and they often have a US flag in the background.
In addition there is the ongoing partisan warfare where someone will put up a photo that makes a politician in the party they don't favour look awkward. There's always images where a person - and it's not just politicians - looks dishevelled or embarrassed or has a striking resemblance to an evil clown through some unfortunate trick of the strong and direct lighting. Then we battle over which shot makes the guy look good or bad and it's rarely an edifying and profuctive discussion.
Creative Commons shot - superior in every way
If we had access to the official photographs, that would be a good solution, apart from the rare-as-hens-teeth excellent professional images that are released under a Creative Commons license.
But we don't. Official government photographs of MPs are taken by Parliament, for example this page of headshots, and the information page says:
This license is not on our list of appropriate Creative Commons licenses.
Some editors argue that we should use official photographs just because, and in justification point to regimes where official photographs are released with free licenses, or they point to Australian sources that seemingly have fewer restrictions, such as the National Archives:
Save for the content on this website supplied by third parties, the National Archives logo and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, the National Archives has applied the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence.
The Archives, it hardly needs saying, rarely go out and create their own content; they store stuff provided by third parties.
There are discussions here and here concerning two previous chiefs, where we have some of those hens teeth photographs from a public debate where both participants look professional and determined, as opposed to the rather more anodyne official mugshots.
While editors are welcome to contribute to these discussions, I think having a centralised discussion would help us evolve something solid we can point to in future. God knows I'm no expert in copyright; it seems straightforward enough to me, but there are undoubtedly other views and voices. --Pete (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Dang, the Australian government seems very strict about this. The US government almost immediately, put out official photos of President Biden & Vice President Harris, to the public domain. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Under US legislation, all US Government works are automatically in the public domain so they don't actually need to be released. The Australian Government applies copyright to its works, and while many agencies use Creative Commons licences, this isn't consistent and the CC licences used often aren't compliant with Wikipedia/Commons requirements (e.g. they are often 'a no commercial use' variant of a CC license). Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I am also no copyright expert, but I'm not sure if it is useful to continue this conversation until those who are resolve the issue with the two images cited. Otherwise, it's always worth remembering that we are not limited to using only one image in articles. It seems obvious to me that official images, where available, are more suited to the infobox than candid shots, but (a) that doesn't mean the candids can't go somewhere else in the article, and (b) in cases where we don't have access to the official portraits, as is the case with pretty much every current Australian politician, a candid can be used instead, and in the cases cited we are fortunate enough to have access to excellent ones. Frickeg (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
It's a matter of visibility. Having as many informed minds on the job as possible is going to be better than just those two or three who care about a couple of hasbeens. --Pete (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
The NAA copyright page is pretty ambiguous in my opinion - what is a third party? Can one government agency be a third party to another, i.e. can the government be a third party to itself? Knowing some of the broader Crown Copyright provisions, I don't think it was intended to allow any govermnent-created image on the website to pass into the public domain, but it could be read that way and honestly I don't think anyone would care. However, I would disagree that we should preference official photographs. These are not necessarily better photographs and are often retouched, e.g. the Turnbull photo currently in use. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I would also agree with Frickeg's point above that we don't need to use the same image of a politician every time an image is required. I see some people deciding to change an image and then making the same change across 20 pages, it doesn't add anything and just seems like a waste of time. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Creative Commons shot - not quite on targetThe "third party" question bothers me. Does this really mean we have a grand treasure trove of previously unavailable images, or does it just mean that nothing much has changed and only material that Archives produces in-house can be freely used? The official portraits may be of good quality but I don't necessarily see them as the best portraits of the person. The Julia Gillard photo we use really gives a good feel for her tough and combatative approach which characterised her term in office, as opposed to the rather more genial image presented at Gillard Government using her official PM portrait. It is rare that we get such good "amateur" images, however, and for the vast bulk of Australian politicians the official photos would be the best we can get - if we actually have the right to use them. So many entries either have no image or something that is less than flattering, such as Mark Arbib here, no offence to Mattinbgn, who went to the trouble of taking the shot and uploading it. --Pete (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I have submitted a copyright request to the National Archives of Australia to try and get some clarity on the status of the prime minister photos – they say they will respond within three weeks. --Canley (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Canley, and it’ll be great to get some much-needed clarity on this issue once they do respond. As for this discussion itself I really have nothing new to add except that I am in full agreement with Frickeg - when available to us without dispute, so far as main infoboxes go (such as for main articles, federal electorate members lists, and ministry pages) we definitely ought to prioritise official portraits (that is, unless they are visibly anachronistic and there are alternatives which are from a more appropriate time period). Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Much of the current content was added by SPA Christianperson (talk·contribs) and it seems like a lot of the material was deliberately added in a satirical manner with deliberately odd use of English, so it's possible that the material doesnt even match up with the now-dead-links that were added Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP editor, and watchlisted the article. While all vandals can get in the bin, misogynistic vandals are particularly unwelcome. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Karmichael Hunt for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Could we please get some more eyes on this one? A non-Australian AfC reviewer seems to have made an absolute mess of an article on a Melbourne heritage building by making mergers on a subject he has absolutely no knowledge of, and is now bizarrely insisting that a nightclub in a small section of the heritage building is the common name for the heritage building, without so much as a Google search. It's the second time in a week I've seen an AfC reviewer make a complete mess of mainspace articles in areas they know absolutely nothing about. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Image request: Statue of Bee Gees (Redcliffe, Queensland)
Can someone please remind me, is there a rule about how to display Australian place names when linking to them when there is a state as part of the article name? (I'm not questioning the actual article name - I am just talking about links to articles that include the state.) I'm pretty sure that someone corrected one of mine many moons ago, to change from [[Whatever, New South Wales]] to [[Whatever, New South Wales|Whatever]], [[New South Wales]] (where useful to add the state - else leave it out), but recently someone changed my correction to this form back to the "Whatever, New South Wales" (i.e. direct link, not piped). It was in an infobox as place of birth, if that makes any difference. I can't seem to find a rule that specifies this and would just like to know for future reference. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The Manual of Style at MOS:SEAOFBLUE recommends not placing two links next to each. To me, for a place of birth, the actual location is more important than the state. Hack (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thanks Hack. I know about SEAOFBLUE, but thought it only applied where not separated by punctuation. Now I see that it also says "For geographic places specified with the name of the larger territorial unit following a comma, generally do not link the larger unit" . Mind you, just above it, it gives an example of Riverside, California, where it suggests piping to Riverside. It could be useful to have a section within the WP:NCPLACE page referring to this, IMO. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm very much inclined to think nightclubs are indeed music venues, given that's one of the main purposes for their existence. I imagine night clubs in Melbourne do in fact play music, I don't know why they wouldn't. And as for the last question, I think the parent category (Category:Music venues in Melbourne) should be renamed to Live music venues in Melbourne whilst the other one shouldn't be. WP:BRD should be followed, and the Drover's Wife has failed to explain their reversion, so the blame does not lie with you. Sean Stephens (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd also prefer a renaming to Category: Live music venues in Melbourne unless there is some reason this can't occur (for instance, lack of consistency with lists for other cities and countries). This would ensure a tighter focus. Otherwise, someone could conceivably add supermarkets, cafes or pubs, positing the question, "Do supermarkets/cafes/pubs in Melbourne play music or not?", which many of them do. Nightclubs, like those places, are arguably not somewhere a person goes primarily for the purpose of listening to music. And although it's not authoritative, I'd also point to the introduction of Music venue which reads, "...any location used for a concert or musical performance". Meticulo (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
... prefer a renaming to Category: Live music ... "Do supermarkets/cafes/pubs in Melbourne play music or not?" - — An interesting point that had not occurred to me. I don't object to renaming to "live music", but your question could also apply to live music. Is Bourke Street a music venue if there are buskers playing music in the Mall? Mitch Ames (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Is Bourke Street a music venue if there are buskers playing music in the Mall - Touché! That hadn't occurred to me. My (unserious) ruling is that the Bourke Street Mall, (1) does not meet the Oxford Dictionary definition of venue, as "The place where something happens, especially an organized event such as a concert, conference, or sports competition", if Barry Busker is relying purely on random passers-by, but, (2) as soon as he texts a mate, saying "Hey, why don't you and the missus come and check me out in the Mall this arvo. My nose flute ensemble will be outside DJs from 3.45pm busting moves in our spandex safari suits", then it can be considered organised and thus, for Wikipedia purposes, becomes a venue the second either or both of his acquaintances unwisely attend his disgraceful display. Meticulo (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
To avoid ambiguity with regard to the original dispute, could editors (including Meticulo, Cavalryman) please indicate whether they support Category:Nightclubs in Melbourne being a subcategory of Category:Music venues in Melbourne, given the existing category structure, and bearing in mind that "live music venues" are necessarily "music venues". We could (and perhaps should) then independently rename "music venues" to "live music venues" where appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Weak oppose Category:Nightclubs in Melbourne becoming a subcategory of Category:Music venues in Melbourne, for reasons of tighter focus as detailed above. Meticulo (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Would you put Category:Nightclubs in Melbourne into Category:Live music venues in Melbourne if it existed? If (for whatever reason) an RfC to rename Category:Music venues in Melbourne to "live music..." failed, would you still assert that nightclubs in Melbourne are not music venues? If so, why? Is your only objection that you'd rather do the rename first? Why not put Nightclubs into Music venues now, and rename later if appropriate? There may be merit in renaming the categories, but I don't think it is necessary to do so to fix the existing issue - ie "is a nightclub a music venue (independently of whether it is live or canned music)?" Mitch Ames (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Why would the Nightclubs category be put into a live music category when they don't generally play live music? That would make even less sense than the attempted reorganisation that preceded this discussion. (For the record, I have no objection to moving the category to live music venues, as it eliminates any ambiguity.) If you're defining music venue as "literally any place that plays any type of music", how is Coles, Woolworths and most retain chain stores not music venues by that same definition? The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Respectively, (1) no, (2)(a) yes, (2)(b) mostly to prevent list bloat, but also because of a hunch the term "music venue" implies live music to many people, (3) no, (4) see 2b. However, I don't feel particularly strongly about any of this. I'm here because of a plea for comments. Meticulo (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, could someone who cares about the distinction between live and canned music (I don't, but clearly some do) please raise an RfC to rename the appropriate categories to "live music...". If someone does that, we can pause this discussion about whether a nightclub is a music venue, and then after the RfC is finished, resume (if necessary) discussion or re-catting nightclubs.
If no-one is prepared to rename to categories, then we'll need to continue the debate about whether a "music venue" necessarily requires "live music". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I tend towards weakly opposing the inclusion of nightclubs within music venues, I too tend towards seeing “music venues” as places live music is played. Whilst technically music is played at nightclubs, it is also played in most pubs, many restaurants and even shops. Cavalryman (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC).
There are also a number of Defunct nightclubs in xxx, LGBT nightclubs in xxx and Defunct LGBT nightclubs in xxx categories. It seems the former usually come fairly directly under a Former music venues category, while the latter two are more remote from music-venue categories. NebY (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Someone has created an article called Hidden Generations, which as far as I can see is not a term in widespread use - Google returns a variety of hits, most either not in Australia or referring to different topics. I am not a new page reviewer, so would like to hear others' opinions on this one - should it be put into draftspace, and/or a suggestion to merge with Stolen Generations added, or is it okay as it stands? (I have also noticed that in both this article and the other one created by the same editor, Country-centred design, there is mention of a Danièle Hromek, so wonder about a COI?) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
That sounds like it might need to be merged. I don’t see that term in use in Australia! Gnangarra not sure if you are around, but you might be in a better position to answer this one. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I have heard the term. I know the practice of families hiding children from the various agencies was common, as was having family members "give up" their identity to enable them to access the towns and cities like White people to help the wider family. I can also provide first hand accounts of such still taking place into the 1980's. My inclination is to keep it as the sourcing is strong. It provides one of many narratives as to how communities overcame the system to keep knowledge, language, culture alive on country. It's not a merge to stolen generations because it had wider reasons and impact. Gnangarra11:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Aussie Article Writer, Skyring, Gnangarra and others - see Talk:Australian Aboriginal identity#Merge to proposal for discussion. Sourcing for the term is not strong - only 2 sources use this term. I'm not against covering it, just think that the term in particular looks too much like OR, and it is used in other contexts and countries. Perhaps it could be included in a new article called Cultural assimilation in Australia. In any case, it's rather poorly structured and could do with improvement, which could be done in draftspace. Anyway - please comment there, everyone! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
If it's not a term in general use and sourcing is poor, then include the concept elsewhere. By its nature, this is not a topic for which there can be much in the way of useful, authorative sourcing. Do we have an article about cultural identity in Australia? If so, whack it in there. Otherwise we are merely providing a vehicle for someone's pet hashtag. --Pete (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
dismissing Hidden Generation as a pet hashtag is not useful, both the term and the underlying practices are acknowledged and documented. Its one thats not got the media attention to give the high number of google results, its used in research and other social discussions along with the impact it has had on ABS language data. Hidden generation reaches beyond the Stolen Generation though it was in part a counter to those practices along with many other actions of the various government decrees on what Indigenous could do. Gnangarra06:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
My point is that we are an encyclopaedia and rely on sources. We do not have articles on every corner shop or hot air balloon, for example, even though these are things that exist and involve significant amounts of money, have official registrations, and are used by thousands of people. If this is not a term in common use, then perhaps it is not notable? Perhaps it is the equivalent of someone floating a hashtag, or flying a hot air balloon with "made famous by Wikipedia" on the side, or promoting their niche special interest group. Wikipedia is full of new articles promoting self-published writers or garage bands with a song on Apple Music, or just things that a few people think are really really important to them. We have an entire category of articles along these lines and we delete thousands of them or make them into a subsection of a relevant head article. You have hit the nail on the head when you say "It's not got the media attention to get the high number of google results" and you seem to think that leveraging Wikipedia as a way to increase visibility is a good way of doing this, just as self-published authors want to see their Kindle sales increase and so on. We can't publish everything with poor sourcing. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Its not some pet hashtag or niche project, its used and documented, along with the various associated practices Gnangarra11:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
We've learned over long experience that self-published WordPress pages on fiercely contentious issues are acceptable sources for Skyring if it supports a perspective Skyring agrees with, while as here, multiple peer-reviewed journal articles are not if it's something Skyring disagrees with or is dismissive of. It never really changes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think anybody is disputing the practice in a legitimate context of Aboriginal identity. The problem is the term, which is poorly sourced. It is certainly not in general use. I am all for including the material in an article where readers might actually find it. It is like having an article for Aubreyad when the only people searching on that term already know what it means. The actual material covered is better located in an article with a more widely-used title. Do you see the point being made? --Pete (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
RSN discussion on The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age
I've come across some inconsistencies concerning Australian prime ministers bios & the article Prime Minister of Australia (particularly the -Acting Prime Minister- section). Examples: Alfred Deakin, Earle Page & Arthur Fadden are numbered & described as Prime Minister of Australia in their bios. Yet they & others are described as Acting Prime Minister, Interim Prime Minister or Caretaker Prime minister, in the article of the office itself. Better yet, look at the infobox of Malcolm Fraser, as to when he took office. Well, which is it? GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Constitutionally there is no such thing as “interim” or “caretaker” PM. Deakin, Page, Fadden etc. we’re and are the full PM with the full powers of the office. Just as an Australian Opposition leader is not actually constitutionally PM or Premier “elect” just because they have not been sworn in yet. That latter one is an Americanism. 180.150.39.166 (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Constitutionally there is no such thing as PM. Presumably there is legislation to cover the job somewhere. Nevertheless, the Governor-General appoints a Prime Minister because the Federal Executive Council advises him on what departments must be headed by Ministers. The G-G has no discretion in the departments or titles, but a (very rare) use of s64 as a reserve power is he may choose who occupies the PM slot and becomes Chair of the Federal Executive Council. This is what happened with Black Jack. Lord Casey was persuaded to appoint McEwen rather than automatically appoint the deputy Liberal leader McMahon (and potentially spark a crisis in government that the country did not need). --Pete (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Our goal IP, is to bring consistency to the Australian prime minister bios, as worded in the article about the prime minister, concerning 'acting, interim, caretaker' tenures. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
All of these people were appointed Prime Minister - no ifs, no buts, Prime Minister. They were appointed by the Governor-General and formally held the job, in full, just for a short period of time. They then ceased to hold the position because they didn't have the numbers to remain in it in the Westminster system. I don't see a basis for arguing otherwise - it's just making stuff up. It is a quite different situation from say, the leadership of the Labor Party under the Rudd rules, where an expressly caretaker/interim leader is appointed that's not generally considered to have been a real party leader. A need for consistency isn't an excuse for starting to just make stuff up. Further, "Acting Prime Minister" has an actual meaning in our system, and I would argue that it's expressly not possible for someone sworn in as Prime Minister to be "acting", although the other roles are Not (Formally) a Thing either. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Trove is a great resource but citations copied from it sometimes wikilink to the wrong article. For example, in this story, click i in circle (left) and scroll the left sidebar to the bottom. It suggests linking to The Daily Telegraph, which leads to the UK newspaper. Other popular targets include The Sunday Times, dabs such as Evening News and SIAs such as The Evening Telegraph. Does anyone have a contact at Trove who could help to improve these links? If they have sufficient resource then we could request a list of their link targets and send corrections for those which lead to the wrong article. If their time is more limited then I could create a list of perhaps ten prolific offenders. Alternatively, what does the team think of requesting a bot to fix these citations as they appear? It should be automatable, for example newspaper=The Evening Telegraph|...|location=Queensland, Australia is always The Evening Telegraph (Charters Towers). Certes (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I feel like we've had this conversation with the NLA in the past and been told it was not going to happen any time soon. The bot is a good idea though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I thought a few of the worst offenders had been fixed after someone had a chat - possibly a Wikipedia person who already had a professional relationship with an NLA person? --Scott DavisTalk15:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
These links to Wikipedia articles would be generated by a simple algorithm. To be more accurate they would have to be based off real data stored somewhere. So that is much more difficult for the programmer. I had a meeting with the Trove coordinator a few years ago, and she was very willing to assist. I asked to get a syntax error in Wikipedia references fixed, and that did happen. She was going to notify me about newly digitised serials in the NLA, but that did not happen. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Thank you for pursuing this. Do you think the best way forward now is to ask Trove for further changes, or should we compile a list of regular errors and recruit a bot to fix them as they occur? Certes (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
While we can ask Trove for further changes, I think recruiting a bot to fix them as they occur is the best way forward - experience suggests it is likely to be a significantly faster process & if we start with the most prolific issues we can refine the process to add more unusual cases as they arise. I am happy to assist with the criteria for what needs to be replaced. --Find bruce (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
If the bot also stripped the occasional comma from the "volume=" segment (as in eg <ref>{{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8829198 |title=THEATRE ROYAL. |newspaper=[[The Mercury]] |volume=IX, |issue=2132 |location=Tasmania, Australia |date=29 October 1864 |accessdate=10 August 2021 |page=2 |via=National Library of Australia}}</ref>), that would be helpful. Converting the "title=" segment to title case would be an added bonus for those of us who think SHOUTING is rude. Doug butler (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Another brainstorming idea: could we ask NLA for a one-off change to display some template other than cite news? That template could change the links (and remove stray commas) without us needing to amend the wikitext or to run a bot. For example, {{cite nla|newspaper=[[The Northern Miner]]}} would link to The Northern Miner (Queensland) instead. We could even ask NLA to change the template name to subst:cite nla, and have the new template replace itself by a standard {{cite news}} template with the links corrected. Alternatively, we could change {{cite news}} to make these changes itself when it detects NLA, but that feels like a poor and opaque design. Certes (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Apart from Graeme's comment about contact some time back - there have been other wikipedians in contact with NLA or Trove staff over time - the significant comments above are well worth passing to - again - whoever makes the effort to contact them this time. JarrahTree12:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
A minor thing, but if Trove do make further changes, can we get them to hyphenate access-date at the same time? I have come across bots that change it from one word to hyphenated throughout articles, presumably for some housekeeping reason, and I quite often use my spell-checker to change it for this reason. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the Trove links have patterns signifying the location that make the link unique. I'll add them to my existing bot as more come up, and fix the rest manually. GoingBatty (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
A list of the wikilinks the NLA uses is essential to fix things fully and useful for even a partial fix. Could we ask for one? If not, do you think that screen-scraping a list from the NLA website would be polite or get us blocked? Trove ID → text, e.g. "123 → Daily Telegraph", would suffice. Wikidata can list the correct links (or at least credible ones – they're all Australian). The difference between those lists would tell us what needs to change, whether at their end or ours. Plan B is for us to compile a partial list of known errors from the institutional memory here and at WPDIS and BPAT. Certes (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Is anyone in contact with Kerry ? As mentioned above, she has a list of dabbed (and otherwise corrected) newspaper titles, including 30 from this user. Doug butler (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I've done some preliminary analysis at User:Certes/Trove using a combination of Trove's API and screen-scraping at a time I hoped was quiet. There are 34 obvious errors and a number of questionable cases, plus 63 missing redirects. Certes (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Updated with a further 198 cases which link to the wrong article or a dab, but most are obscure newspapers with few citations. I have a method for finding correct links, when I next find time to work on it. Certes (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your work so far @Certes:. Redirects are both cheap and easy so I have taken the liberty of creating re-directs for almost all of the ones you identified - I'm inclined to the view that Portland Observer and Normanby Advertiser should have its own article rather than point to its rival Portland Guardian. I like the thoroughness of your approach as you picked up a couple of mistakes in re-directs that I had created. I think there may be an error in your table re The Western Champion (Blackall and Barcaldine, Queensland 1879-1891 & 1922-1937) and the different newspaper Western Champion (Parkes, NSW : 1898-1934). A definitive article is a lousy disambiguation, so I have moved them to The Western Champion (Queensland) and Western Champion (Parkes) --Find bruce (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this with diligence - these redirects are very helpful if it's the same newspaper. Australian newspapers are another area that really suffers from that bad Wikipedia habit of redirecting articles on any institution that ever existed to the most recent organisation that draws or claims some lineage from them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@Find bruce: Thanks for checking and for creating the redirects, which was my next task if no one objected. The list includes a lot of manual fiddling and judgement. I'm neither Australian nor a newspaper expert, will inevitably make mistakes. You're quite right about [The] Western Champion. We could even go further and make Western Champion a dab, and retarget The Western Champion there as a {{R from ambiguous term}} (see also Western Conference (MLS)#Western Conference regular season champions by year, Western Conference (NBA)#Conference champions, etc.?) It's at least worth reviewing existing links to them. There is precedent for "The" as a disambiguator but it can cause problems: I regularly swap links between St. Petersburg Times and The St. Petersburg Times, and between New Statesman and The New Statesman. The second table excludes hundreds of titles which produce redlinks. Most have no article and can be left alone but some might benefit from new redirects; I've not yet tried to identify the best targets. Certes (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliments but I may not have been diligent enough. This job has become much larger than I expected. I just noticed that I've somehow missed 505 (The Sunday Times (Western Australia), perennially mislinked as Sunday Times) and therefore probably others. I also need to take more notice of start and end dates (I have a list from Trove's API). We seem to have most the ingredients for a big table or spreadsheet with columns such as
Trove id (primary key; correct by definition)
Article title from Trove API, e.g. "Canberra Community News (ACT : 1925 - 1927)"
Link cited in {{cite news}} (wrong in at least 200 cases)
Attribution when Trove displays Wikipedia's description
Article/redirect linked to the Wikidata item(s) with this Trove id
Article(s)/redirect(s) using this Trove id in {{Trove newspaper}}
Location cited in {{cite news}}
Start date from Trove API
End date from Trove API
Our best estimate of the correct article, redirect or redlink
The wikitext which should replace the cited link when the link and location match and the date is between the start and end dates
Columns 4–6 are often missing but usually correct if present. Columns 7–9 are to distinguish publications with similar names. A few questions:
Do we know of any other sources to help match Trove ids to Wikipedia titles?
What text should the piped link display when there is an article: current text, column 2 without the (qualifier), article title without (qualifier) or something else?
What should we do when there's no article: substitute a redlink or plain text?
Seems that the various State governments have declared this.
The Head of State in NSW (and the other Australian states) is the Governor who is appointed by the sovereign on the Premier’s recommendation. The Governor represents the Crown in NSW and performs the sovereign’s constitutional duties on their behalf ensuring stable government and a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power. Her Excellency the Honourable Margaret Beazley AC QC is the 39th Governor of New South Wales. She started her five year term on 2 May 2019. The Governor-General is the Head of State for Australia.
The Head of State is the person who represents a country or state at the highest level. The Governor-General is the Head of State for all of Australia. In NSW we also have a Head of State and this is the Governor of NSW.
Tasmania, as a constituent member of the Australian Federation, is both a part of the Commonwealth of Australia and a self-governing State with its own separate identity and as such possesses all the constitutional elements of an independent and sovereign state, including its own head of state who is the Governor.
The Governor as Head of State Although the Governor is appointed by The Queen as her representative, the Governor exercises the constitutional power of Head of State in Victoria.
The Governor is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Premier to act as her representative as Head of State in Victoria. Although the Governor is the Queen’s representative, it is the Governor and not the Queen who exercises the powers of Head of State.
The Governor is the Head of State of Western Australia and represents the people of Western Australia in welcoming visiting Heads of State, royalty, ambassadors, spiritual leaders, members of the consular corps of Western Australia, and members of the general public who serve the State.
I don't think they take much notice of us. They do what they do without our authority, the scoundrels! --Pete (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it's best to have an RFC on this matter concerning Australia's states. Not sure, how Australia feels about the independence claims of any of their states. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps Australians see themselves as less colonial than you Canucks, bless your sentimental souls! --Pete (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
What I've read of you bloc quotes 'so far', is descriptions of how they carry out duties, like a head state (i.e. representing the Australian monarch). Very much as lieutenant governors & commissioners do in the Canadian provinces & territories. Anyways, RFC beguan at said WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Not like a head of state. Four state governments state directly that their governor is their head of state, one says that the governor is the local head of state, and one says it's the Queen. All of them say that the governor represents HM. --Pete (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
You may express yourself about the topic, at the RFC-in-question. PS - I must admit, over 20 years & you still can't let it go :) GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay Canada and Australia its not same at all, Australian state has a direct link to Monarch. where as Provinces of Canada has indirect though by Governor-general of Canada.
The Governor General is appointed by The Queen upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Canada. The Lieutenant Governors are appointed by the Governor General upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Canada.
The Queen is represented in Australia at the federal level by a Governor-General. He or she is appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia. At the state level The Queen is represented by the Governors of each state who are appointed on the advice of each state Premier.
I stress this, all the states of Australia was self-governing responsible government before. On 1 January 1901 the six separate British self-governing colonies of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, and Western Australia united to form the Commonwealth of Australia. theses state still has they own constitution and direct link to The Queen. Muzi (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Provincial lieutenant governors 'represent' the Canadian monarch in their respective provinces. BTW: You Aussies do have an elected Senate, ya lucky ducks. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Good point, Muzi. I am reminded of the National Gallery of Victoria, which has retained that name since 1875, well before Federation. The various State Governors are not claiming to be the Commonwealth head of state, nor are they rejecting the representation of the Queen. It has been noted earlier - at the time of the republic referendum - that a Yes vote there would not have changed the affairs of the States, and they would have had to make their own arrangements or not. Some comments were made at the time of the referendum and after, for example here and here (the latter from Professor Greg Craven, who definitely knows his stuff).
Craven notes that a referendum within Western Australia would be required to change the role of the Governor, who is described as the Queen's representative in s50 and any change would specifically require a referendum under s73(2). However the term "head of state" is not mentioned within the WA Constitution. There does not seem to be any difficulty in giving the State Governor the title of Head of State. I doubt if any of the other State constitutions have radically different arrangements.
There does not seem to be any way for the Commonwealth to alter the constitutional arrangements of the States or vice versa. If Australia became a republic with a complete removal of the Queen's largely symbolic role, this would not compel the States to change their arrangements and it would be entirely possible that a republican Commonwealth could contain monarchical States. Or vice versa. The only issue woudl be one of "coherence" as Craven notes but realistically few would care; the States are regarded as quaint colonial relics anyway.
Likewise, the States cannot alter the Commonwealth's constitution, except indirectly through voting as per s128. On that note, We have NSW declaring
The Head of State in NSW (and the other Australian states) is the Governor who is appointed by the sovereign on the Premier’s recommendation. The Governor represents the Crown in NSW and performs the sovereign’s constitutional duties on their behalf ensuring stable government and a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power. Her Excellency the Honourable Margaret Beazley AC QC is the 39th Governor of New South Wales. She started her five year term on 2 May 2019. The Governor-General is the Head of State for Australia.
and this is not some conceit of New South Wales, but a reflection of the Governor-General's own usage.
The Governor-General of Australia is the Queen’s representative. In practice, they are Australia’s Head of State and have a range of constitutional and ceremonial duties.
In an Australian context - and while the unresearched views of Canadians are always welcome, especially if they are entertaining - how do we respond in our encyclopaedia?
They are wrong. Elected governments must bow to Wikipedia.
We report the facts. If a government says their head of state is someone, then we cannot alter that, short of mounting a coup. We are not yet at that stage, surely?
We ignore them and hope it will go away.
On that last point, my guess is that with the end of the Queen's long and glorious reign approaching, we will shortly thereafter revisit the question of becoming a republic and there is not enough monarchical sentiment remaining to hold King Charles III to any involvement in our affairs. We will join those many members of the British Commonwealth who have become republics and the response from Buckingham Palace will be what it always has been: "It is the decision of the people, we recognise your wishes, and we wish you well." Prince Charles mentioned many decades ago that if he never became King of Australia he would not weep bitter tears if he never got to drink from that cup.
Over the years there has been a steady decline in the use of monarchical symbols. The big grievance at the time of the republic referendum was that it was inconsistent with Australian views that our head of state be an Englishwoman living in London. It has been a generation on since then and my guess is that with the term "head of state" holding no legal force in Australia, the State Governors and Governor-General simply agreed that Australian heads of state should be Australians. That requires no referendum or legislation, simply an acknowledgement that HM is not one of us. To my mind that is simple common sense. I think the days of Empire have long gone, regardless of whether we have bothered to go through the tedious and expensive and divisive processes of referendum. --Pete (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay:, it's entirely inappropriate to have a RfC to gauge editor consensus on a topic like this, which is a legal question. The question of whether a Governor-General or a state Governor is a head of state (legally or de facto) has been the subject of commentary in constitutional law and there are arguments either way - see Australian head of state dispute. This Parliamentary note and this article explain some of the issues. Deus et lex (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
And your reason is what? I've raised a perfectly valid point. Legal issues are not some thing you can just get a "vibe" from different editors. Deus et lex (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
You posted something at my talkpage, which I didn't appreciate. Anyways, the RFC is on & you 'sorta' expressed your views there. That's all that was required. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Deus et lex that the question is a legal question. The answer, in my view, is to be found in the preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), which makes clear that the people (ie not the parliaments or executive governments) of the various Australian colonies had agreed to unite "under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", which, since 1952, means the Queen, of whom the Governor-General and the various State governors are merely representatives. No amount of political and/or legal propaganda by people involved in the republic debate, or by State parliaments or executive governments, or by anyone else, can change that basic legal position. Not surprisingly, that legal position is reflected in the Perth Agreement, made as recently as 2011, according to which all of the Commonwealth realms, including Australia, agreed to change the rules concerning the succession to the British throne. The Parliaments of all of the States, and the federal Parliament, subsequently ratified that agreement by enacting legislation. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this. It seems to have been a bit of a peculiar one - we had two articles on the same newspaper, written largely by different people, with text so similar one of them clearly copied from the other, but which appears to be original to Wikipedia. I completed the merge, anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Removal of sourced material from BLP
Looking at this deletion, I'm wondering what the grounds for removal might be. It is an almost verbatim quote from the website of the Australian Governor-General:
The Governor-General of Australia is the Queen’s representative. In practice, they are Australia’s Head of State and have a range of constitutional and ceremonial duties.
The Governor-General's webpage notes that they are the representative of the Queen and in practice, Australia's head of state.
The source was clearly referenced. The edit summary expressed a personal opinion which the editor feels carries more weight than the Governor-General's own website. Props for giving Wikipedia such supremacy and poweer, but I don't think we are quite there yet. --Pete (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Look at the wording above. We're not declaring that he is the head of state, merely reporting his own claim in his own words. For a BLP, when a significant public figure makes a controversial claim, and it is reliably sourced, in my book that makes it worthy of inclusion. John Lennon claimed the Beatles were bigger than Jesus; we don't make any value judgement on this, merely report the facts. Wikipedia is full of examples, the most bizarre - in my opinion - is that of Joshua Abraham Norton, who was really only notable for one thing which wasn't actually true! --Pete (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Pete, we use the word "notes". (The Governor-General's webpage notes that they are the representative of the Queen and in practice, Australia's head of state). That sounds very much like we're agreeing with him, because to "note" something, it must be true or generally considered true. If it stays, it needs to say "claims", "asserts" or similar. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]08:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
This RFC, held in 2016, clearly stated that the Monarch is Australia's head of state. Not the governor-general. PS - Must we go through this again. This push to have either the monarch's identity as head of state denied or questioned, has now been going on for over 15 years. GoodDay (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I originally made that deletion and I quickly posted my reason at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#RFC: Are Australian state governors, heads of state? at "8.2.4 Related topic David Hurley". I said: "the Hurley article has to link to the G-G article and not itself explain what a G-G is". Pete has not replied there, but has posted this Notice instead. For that reason as well as what GoodDay refers to, this Notice is timewasting. Pete has been warned often, sometimes for incivility and including requests to remove himself from WP. Errantius (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I must say I find it very offensive that it can't be stated that the GG is "in practice, Australia's head of state", which is clearly true.--Grahame (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't change the fact, that the Monarch is the head of state. "In practice..." can be said for the Canadian governor general, the New Zealand governor-general, etc etc. Only the UK doesn't have a GG, among the sixteen Commonwealth realms. "In practice..." equates to "Representing the Head of State". GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
You are obviously a lawyer. I was only stating that the GG is "in practice, Australia's head of state". I don't appreciate the verbaling.--Grahame (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
TBH, Skyring/Pete should've taken this discussion to WP:COMMONWEALTH & gotten a review of "In practice..." for current & former governors general in all 15 realms, that have'em. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Looking carefully at the comments above, I'm not seeing any valid reason to remove this. To address the comment by User:JackofOz we're not stating that David Hurley is the head of state, merely noting that the Governor-General's website makes the claim. The claim by User:Errantius that the David Hurley article does not link to the Governor-General article is risible. It links at least five times, and also lists him (albeit in brackets) as a head of state. The Governor-General article links to David Hurley six times. It is reliably sourced as per the Governor-General's official website. A RS and controversial claim on a BLP of a notable public figure is notable in itself. Final comments, anybody, based on Wikiprocedure rather than personal opinion? --Pete (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but the Monarch is Australia's head of state. We've already went over that, again & again & again & again..... IF need be, I'll expand this discussion in to an RFC. If you're going to persist. GoodDay (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll ask you to hold off on that for a while. Seems to me we are having an informed discussion here with other editors raising relevant points. This is a BLP matter, in any case. --Pete (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Or, it might be time (again) to open up an RFC about who's Australia's head of state. Seeing as you're increasingly ignoring the 2016 RFC results. GoodDay (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
There already was an RFC on that topic in 2016, with a resounding consensus of 'the Monarch is Australia's head of state'. But no, I won't open an RM tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with that. Nobody is saying the Governor-General is Australia's head of state. If you can find an example, please supply it. --Pete (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Actually, it's about something else. Already, @NebY: & @Errantius: & others before them, have (over the years) found holes in the sources you have provided or mistakes in how you've brought them forward. Creating the impression that either you're being dishonest or making blunders. GoodDay (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, how about you leave it in their capable hands and others who have some idea of what they are talking about? We may not all share the same point of view, but at least we are reading from the same pages and working together. Again, with respect, your frequent interjections with no substantive input are disruptive. --Pete (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Now I'm getting verballed. Again by Pete, who writes: "The claim by User:Errantius that the David Hurley article does not link to the Governor-General article is risible. It links at least five times, and also lists him (albeit in brackets) as a head of state." I made no such claim, but said: "the Hurley article has to link to the G-G article and not itself explain what a G-G is". That is, the Hurley article needs to do X and not Y; and of course it had been doing X. More timewasting from a persistently unconstructive editor. Errantius (talk) 07:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I have not the slightest idea what you are trying to say here and I doubt if anyone else has, including you. Spell it out. In any case, it does not appear to be relevant to the text under discussion. As per JackinOz's notes above, I'm puting it back with the modified wording. --Pete (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
No other valid objections were raised. JackinOz suggested different wording to move away from your precious RfC of 2016. I have no idea what Errantius is getting at. Do you have anything specific you want to say about this BLP apart from repeating your mantra? We are not saying that the Governor-General is the head of state, merely that his website makes the claim which any fool can see for themselves if they read English. Have you even checked? --Pete (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Consensus isn't required. We discussed it here, there was one specific objection raised, that was addressed. What is your specific problem about the changed wording? --Pete (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
If Skyring/Pete is so anxious to add 'something' to the Hurley article. I suggest we reach a consensus here 'first', before making such an addition to the Hurley article. Iron out the wording, if it's to be accepted at all. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
And if he did, as a notable public officer, that bizarre claim would in itself be notable, so long as we didn't say he actually was Kermit the frog. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Present the proposed addition here. If there's no objections after 24 hrs? then by all means, re-add to the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. BRD applies. I brought it here, there was one valid objection raised, the wording was changed. I ask again. Do you have any specific problem with the revised wording? I'm a reasonable man, I'm happy to address valid matters. But if you don't say what your problem is, how can it be addressed? --Pete (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I do have a valid objection. Saying or claiming you're the head of state, doesn't make you the head of state. But again, wait 24 hrs & if nobody else objects? then by all means re-implement. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
We're not saying he is the head of state. We thrashed that out above. Are you saying that if a notable person makes a bold claim, it's not notable? Look at Joshua Abraham Norton; the only reason he's notable is because he made a bold claim, which wasn't even true! You seem to think it's a bold claim, but should somehow be suppressed. Why? --Pete (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Note, myself & Skyring are endanger of edit-warring breach. Again, recommend that Skyring wait 24 hrs, before re-implementing his proposed edit. Is there some kinda of an emergency that he -can't wait-? He's suppose to be a 'calm man'. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm going for a bike ride. Exercise lockdown. Burn off that shortbread bikkie. Just discovered that they aren't making shortbread any longer. No more edits from me for a bit. --Pete (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I've just protected the article for 24 hours rather than block both the editors here. I agree that it's disappointing that this issue keeps coming up. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Skyring's been at it for over 15 years. In fact, he was banned about a year for it, when I joined the 'pedia in 2005. But, that's another headache of a topic. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Skyring's proposal
The Governor-General's webpage asserts that they are the representative of the Queen and in practice, Australia's head of state.[1]
You have made a fuss over this. What is your specific objection? We discussed the matter for a day and a bit, we found alternate wording, you still have a problem - obviously - but you cannot say what it is despite repeated requests. Quit being a disruption. Please. --Pete (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
"Asserts" is too strong a verb. If something is to be included, and I'm not yet convinced it should be, then perhaps "describes". - Ryk72talk00:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
W.r.t. I'm not yet convinced it should be (included); it seems a little strange to be pulling one line from the website & including it in the article. Why are we including this, but not including anything else? Do we have any secondary sourcing which would give weight to the inclusion? - Ryk72talk00:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Hurley is the first Governor-General to describe himself as the Australian head of state. It is notable for that reason. It belongs in the Governor-General section of the BLP. Where else? "Asserts" is one of two suggestions - the other being "claims" - made above. I picked one, but have no strong feeling either way. --Pete (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
What he describes himself as, is irrelevant. The monarch is Australia's head of state, no matter how much Hurley may claim otherwise. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
It's irrelevant to what he claims to have been. As the governor-general is not Australia's head of state. You've been pushing this stuff now, for over 15 years. Anyways, the article-in-question is now protected in status quo form, for 24 hrs. PS- IF you attempt to reinstate edits after that, without a consensus 'here'? I shall have to contact the page protecting editor, about it. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a specific objection to the wording? We're not saying he is the head of state, just that he claims to be. You do understand this point? --Pete (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we can say that Hurley claims to be "Head of State" in an unqualified sense; certainly not with the Governor General's website as the source. The text there includes the qualification "in practice"; similar to "de facto" or "performs the duties of", that's a very different claim. - Ryk72talk00:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
References
^"The role of the Governor-General". The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. 2019. Retrieved 12 August 2021. The Governor-General of Australia is the Queen's representative. In practice, they are Australia's Head of State and have a range of constitutional and ceremonial duties.
COVID-19 protests
Hi there, I was wondering if it will be a good idea to create a COVID-19 anti-lockdown protests in Australia article. This article will be similar to the COVID-19 anti-lockdown protests in New Zealand article. There is an Australian section in the Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic article. Was thinking that it would be good to have an Australian protests article given the media coverage in the Australian and international (including NZ) media. The article will need more work. There were some Facebook references in the Australian section but I had to remove them per Wikipedia policy discouraging the use of Facebook posts as primary sources. Just wanted to check what Australian Wikipedians think before creating it. Andykatib05:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
There are certainly enough good news sopurces. Obtaining images we can use might be a problem. Maybe there are protest photographers uploading to Flickr and releasing under a CC licence. The notability is evident, I think. These galoots are creating superspreader events during a crisis and sucking away at the police who could be doing productive work. --Pete (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Are these really 'anti-lockdown protests'? A lot of the protesters appear to have been motivated by an opposition to vaccines (including a woefully mistaken view that the COVID vaccines are mandatory). Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure that that's the right name for them (see also: the protests in Perth which has no lockdown). I do agree it makes sense to have an article breaking out from the global one at this stage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Heartened by the support for this idea. Agree that it will need more work and tinkering. Happy to let someone go ahead and create the article. Andykatib07:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
We can all work on it. Best to get the name straight before creation. Doing a Google News search on "protest" reveals that they are almost universally described as "anti-lockdown protests" or "lockdown protests", despite there being a range of issues these folk are protesting. Vaccines, masks, 5G chips… --Pete (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
watching a various items from different tv stations, the issues that have placards visible suggest a number of issues being addressed - and listening to some commentators as to motivations - the events in some locations show signs of a diversity of reactions to government and authority... to limit the scope to lockdown or anti vax is potentially missing what quite a few of the participants may be up to at the events. JarrahTree12:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with JarrahTree. There are several possible alternative names for the proposed article - see Category:Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic for some ideas. I understand, eg, that some of the protesting is against the fact that BLM protests were allowed or at least condoned in 2020, whereas in 2021 in most Australian jurisdictions protests either for or against anything are not permitted or condoned at all. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I think the government responses to recent protests have more to do with the pandemic than the politics. Mass unmasked gatherings with participants shouting and chanting are a severe public health risk with the Delta variant at loose in the community right now. Last year we had few cases at large and those were of the less virulent strains. These recent events are going to have an effect on the daily case numbers - and deaths - and the frustration of the state leaders announcing ever-larger numbers is evident. Freedom of speech, as they say, does not extend to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and these protests come fairly close to doing just that.
Perhaps we can call them "COVID-19 protests"? As per the discussion title. That covers most of the issues under a wide umbrella. I don't think that anyone is going to think that the protests are for or against the pandemic, just about the measures taken which do necessarily impact upon assembly and liberty and so on. After all, a pro-lockdown mass protest would consist of streets empty apart from platoons of police looking around in an uncomprehending aspect. --Pete (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
"COVID-19 protests" works for me. Even if "anti-lockdown" is often used as media shorthand, it's plainly untrue when they're happening in places with no lockdown and really doesn't capture the diversity of issues arising out of them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
This merger occurred today, these articles need updating and Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia created. My understanding is that the two existing courts will continue as "divisions" of the new court. The new website describes them as "continuations" of the old courts, should we treat it as such (and possibly move the existing articles to "Division X of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia", pretty clunky), or treat it as the old courts being abolished and replaced? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I think for the purposes of the articles we should treat it as the old courts being abolished, because the current situation is much more easily explained without mangling it with the distinct histories of the two predecessor courts. Most sources I can find offhand do seem to refer to it as an "abolition", even though as you note the final legislation passed was a bit more complicated than that. Thank Rex Patrick for this confusing Clayton's abolition-(but-not-abolition) situation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. I don't visit this board as much as I used to do but I am looking for some assistance. I propose to create an article on Michael Coleridge's iconic Vietnam War photograph of Australian soliders waiting to board a helicopter. The photograph can be seen on the AWM website for those who don't know the photograph I am talking about. It is the one featured on the Vietnam National Memorial on ANZAC Parade in Canberra.
I think there is more than enough material to source an article on this topic but I am not sure what it should be titled. The AWM call it "Members of 5 Platoon, B Company, 7th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment (7RAR), just north ..." which isn't helpful. Any thoughts? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this is likely a notable photo. The Department of Veterans' Affairs guide to the memorial calls it 'Members of 5 Platoon, B Company, 7th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment, 26 August 1967' which is also a mouthful. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I've met Michael. Fascinating bloke. He carries around an old history book full of conspiracy stuff. Might be worth hunting down. I think he lived in Cooma then, but I could be wrong. Is he still going? Full of stories, there must be some of them written down somewhere. He was a sergeant when he took the photo, but they didn't show his rank on the memorial and he was shirty about that. But I don't think he ever gave that shot a name. It was just one more on the roll of film. --Pete (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC) (Later. I see he's left us.[10] A few links there.) --Pete (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
'Fraid not. I'd like to see an article on the image but ATM, like Nick, I can't see anything better than "Members of 5 Platoon, B Company, 7th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment, 26 August 1967"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your assistance. I have started an article in my userspace using "Members of 5 Platoon, B Company, 7th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment, 26 August 1967". Given the photograph is in the public domain, we may be able to get a high resolution version too. I uploaded the low-res version to Commons earlier this week - see thumb in this section. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
What about Michael Coleridge's 7RAR photo August 1967 it hits the high notes of most probable searches for someone who knew a bit but not every detail would search for while still being succinct and not creating a mouthful of words. Obviously the full title would be in the article Gnangarra10:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Support WWGB's title idea above - simple and straightforward
Feral species being removed from lists of mammal species
A relatively new editor (User talk:J0ngM0ng) has been removing feral species (such as cats, camels, pigs, goats, etc) from "Lists pf mammals ..." articles for various states, with the edit summary "Feral populations of domestic animals are not counted in mammals lists". Examples include AUS [12], [13]}, NT [14], NSW [15], SA [16], TAS [17], VIC [18], WA [19]}.
Given the huge impacts that these ferals have had on the Australian landscape and native fauna, I don't think that it's reasonable to omit them from these lists, particularly since this info can't be readily gleaned from other pages (apart from standalone articles or categories). When I challenged this editor to provide a reference to the WP:MOS to back up to his assertion, it seems he was unable to do so, and instead he invited me to open a discussion on the talk page (for the SA list, where I first picked this up). As he has done this on multiple pages, I've brought this here, to centralise the discussion. Bahudhara (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The lead paragraphs for both SA and WA (I haven't checked the others) explicitly include introduced species, as do the references. So ferals are definitely within the scope of the articles. Perhaps we need separate articles for "native ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
More seriously is the personal ownership of a campaign - rather than any discussion first, and ignoring most of the processes required to understand how issues are raised, discussed and resolved. JarrahTree08:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Feral or pest animals certainly belong in fauna lists, as other sources on the topic also list them. Analogously, the flora articles and books list weeds. Anyway WP:BRD says that if you don't like the bold change revert it, and then discuss if required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Main reason why I don't have feral animals on mammals lists is because the IUCN Red List, the main source for most lists, does not have an assessment for domestic species (or their feral populations). Additionally, as stated on the South Australia talk page, feral mammals would make most lists redundant, as some species (like goats, cats, dogs) would be present in nearly every list. The same applies to humans; there is no IUCN assessment because the assessments themselves are supposed to be a measure of how much humans have affected their survival. @BhagyaMani:@Jts1882:@Kevmin:@Elmidae: thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by J0ngM0ng (talk • contribs)
I agree with the other Aussie editors, the feral and introduced species are to be listed. IUCN is not the end all authoritative source for ranges that species are in (and its also NOT the main source for most lists to be honest).--Kevmin§20:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Then what other sources are there that are on the same level of detail and comprehension? I don't think another source has as much information as IUCN when it comes to species' ranges. J0ngM0ng (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Done - added Indigenous People and NSW projects to assessment. Dan arndt (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
_George_W_Lambert.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Victoria (Australia) § Requested move 18 July 2021. Sean Stephens (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Members_of_5_Platoon,_B_Company,_7th_Battalion,_The_Royal_Australian_Regiment,_26_August_1967.jpg){kind=link}