Talk:Noongar

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Noongar article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Australia: Western Australia / Noongar / Indigenous peoples Mid‑importance

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

The latest unsigned changes[edit]

There have been three changes made by an unsigned member that are contentious POV statements that have no source cited. These are all against Wikipedia policy. Unless in the next 24 hours the person who made these changes can reference them, I will be editing it back to the previous statement. John D. Croft 02:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Tribal lands"[edit]

It states that the Noongar "tribal lands". This is in error as the Noongar did not live in tribes. I have amended it appropriately John D. Croft 09:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has already been assimilated?[edit]

It would probably be pertinent to delete from this draft the information that has already been put into the main article. Benn M. 15:48, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

gone[edit]

SeanMack 14:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Significant edit[edit]

If anyone's wondering, I have removed the reference to Sally Morgan's famous book because, while she grew up in Perth, she is not Noongar; her family were from much further north, near Marble Bar. Chrisell 17:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biblio?[edit]

Surely there's a book?User:SatuSuro 12:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the (now deceased) missionary linguist Wilf Douglas wrote a book on Nyungar. I'll put in a reference to it sometime. Dougg 02:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Nyungar confusion[edit]

The article is incorrect where it states that 'some linguists regard modern Noongar as a dialect of English'. It is clear that 'modern Noongar' has been to a fair extent re-modelled along the lines of English, but it is certainly not a dialect of English and I know of no linguists who have claimed that it is. Unless anyone disagrees, I'll take that comment out sometime. Dougg 10:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've had a chance to check this properly and it is as I thought. The late Wilf Douglas coined the term 'neo-nyungar' to refer to the particular Aboriginal English used by Nyungar people, which includes elements of Nyungar. He did however distinguish between 'Neo-Nyungar' and 'Nyungar'. Ethnologue seems to have incorrectly equated 'neo-nyungar' with 'Nyungar', showing them as equivalents on the pages at English and Nyunga. Dougg 02:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite your references. In which paper did this chap "coin the term", and which writings have people misunderstood? and who is Wilf Douglas anyway? If he is notable, then perhaps he ought to have a page of his own. jmd 06:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote that I put a reference to the book by Wilf Douglas (in which he first uses the term 'neo-Nyungar') in the 'References' section of the article. Do you think there should be an inline citation as well? Good point about a page for Wilf Douglas, I'll start one asap. Dougg 11:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfrid Douglas[edit]

Ok, I've put up a page on Wilfrid Douglas. As you'll see he did some significant work on Noongar. Probably the second 'modern' (-ish) linguist to work on the language after Gerhardt Laves (oops, there's another page to create!) Feel free to expand, improve, etc.. Dougg 06:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Djanga[edit]

The Noongar considered themselves civilised, especially in comparison with the 'invading' British. Reflecting this attitude, they called the newcomers 'Djanga' (or 'djanak'), meaning 'white devils'. [4]

Every reference I've seen on this topic stated that the Noongars believed that the white people were the returning spirits of the Noongar dead. Hence 'Djanga': "spirits of the dead". This notion that the Noongars thought the Europeans uncivilised is news to me. Considering the reference is to a blog, I'm inclined to remove it and insert the "accepted" version. Any comments? User:Hesperian 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That para is POV and I agree it could be toned down to what you suggest -- —Moondyne 02:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen 5 reasons why Aboriginal people referred to Europeans as Djanga.

They came from the direction of Kuranup - the direction of the setting sun, where the land of the dead was located.
Early settlers clothing left much to be desired, the Europeans were found to "stink like the dead" to the Noongar
Europeans were pale, like the dead.
Europeans could not remember their connection to Aboriginal kinship systems, as death was supposed to erase the memory of culture.
Association with Europeans often resulted in Noongars catching a European disease and dying from illnesses for which they had no resistance.

I cannot remember the reference but suspect it was something kept at the Koolbardi Centre at Murdoch. John D. Croft (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Standard' spelling of Nyungar/Noongar/...[edit]

Hi,

I saw that you've changed all the spellings of 'Nyungar' to 'Noongar in the article of that name'. I'm just wondering what your basis is for saying that's the 'standard' spelling. Dougg 09:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant to mention that while you've changed all the spellings 'Nyoongar', you've missed several instances of 'Nyungar'. cheers, Dougg 09:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dougg, I have no basis for saying any spelling is "standard" - and don't believe there is a standard. The first sentence in the article itself states that "Noongar" is the preferred spelling in the south of the state. I was just trying to be consistent - and failing at that I see :) - at the time I had the =Culture= section open for editing to sort out a similar issue related to the spelling of "Wagyl".

In hindsight I should have returned to finish the job - which I'll do now. Notwithstanding my omissions, the Noongar article is spelt as such and "Nyoongar" and "Nyungar" both redirects, so it seems reasonable to be consistent throughout. Special:Whatlinkshere/Noongar indicates that "Noongar" is the most common useage in Wikipedia. -- —Moondyne 13:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Len Collard [1] states ... There are even variations in the spelling of the word which include Nyungar, Noongar, Nyoongar or Noongah. This variation reflects both regional dialect differences as well as an attempt by regional groups to retain in a modern Australian society a sense of independence and difference within. Regards -- —Moondyne 13:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I thought you were suggesting that 'Noongar' is the standard. You're correct that there is no one standard, athough I personally would prefer to see 'Nyungar' used in the article as it better reflects the speech of the best living speakers such as Len's father, Fred Collard (actually, 'Nhunga' would be a closer approximation to the speech of speakers from a couple of generations ago, but I don't think anyone would like it these days). The main dialect difference was between 'nyunga' and 'nyungara', but I don't think anyone says the latter anymore. Anyway as you say, it's good to be consistent. I might just add something to the language section discussing the various spellings of the word. cheers, Dougg 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Dougg, I do agree that "Nyungar" is the more common spelling outside Wikipedia, and personally would prefer it changed throughout to that. I've moved our discussion here (from my talk page) to hear what others think. Whatever we decide, we should aim to be consistent throughout the wiki. -- —Moondyne 00:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I didn't make myself totally clear in my last comment, but I'm happy for the article to retain the spelling 'Noongar' if that's what is felt to be best. I certainly agree that it's important to be consistent. Dougg 02:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you guys. "Nyungar" would be much better. I'm not sure how accurate the statement "In the south the spelling Noongar is preferred, reflecting a broader accent" is. The citation for the alternative spellings incorrectly links to a biography of Tindale, so that's no help. I'll ask User:SeanMack if he can remember where he got his information from, and whether he would object to a page move. User:Hesperian 02:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After Sean responded on my talk page, I had another look into it, and I have changed my mind. Here's a quote from this webpage

The orthography of the word noongar reflects some of this variation, as well as the history of rendering an oral language into a written one by wadjelas. Writers who have close connections with the Brookton area (Davis, Mudrooroo, Eddie Bennell), or who acknowledge Davis as a mentor, use the "Nyoongah" transcription, although Eddie Bennell used the ar ending. Wadjela historians (Tilbrook, Haebich) and linguists (Dench) use the phonetic "Nyungar." This orthography was used initially by the Noongar language and culture centre, and used by Collard in her transcription, Kura, and by Glenyse Ward in Unna you fullas. (Ward acknowledges the assistance of the Noongar language and culture centre.) However in April 1991, a meeting of Noongar elders convened by the Noongar language and culture centre and held in Narrogin decided that the preferred orthography was "Noongar." Reasons given by Rose Whitehurst, the compiler of the Noongar Dictionary published by the centre, were that the elders recalled that when the missionaries first wrote the word "Noongar" for the people, this was the orthography used; and that the use of oo rather than u was preferred because there was less likelihood of it being confused with "Nunga," the name of Aboriginal people from South Australia. (Whitehurst 1992: Pers. comm.)

So the "Wadjela historians" (that's us) tend to use "Nyungar" even though the Noongars prefer "Noongar". In that case, I'd prefer to use the Noongar preferred orthography "Noongar". User:Hesperian 05:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. After reading that, I agree with you (ie. "Noongar") also. -- —Moondyne 06:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to go along with that, but I'd like to make a couple of points, particularly regards the above quote: Firstly, the orthography of Noongar, as used in the Noongar Dictionary uses 'ny' for the laminal nasal, which is the sound older speakers say at the start of the word noongar, so the spelling noongar actually goes against the orthography used by the Noongar Language and Culture Centre (but names are often idiosyncratic). Secondly, while the spelling 'Noongar' was indeed endorsed by the Narrogin meeting, and then again by the one at Dryandra, there is not one concensus on this. There are Noongar elders who were not at those meetings, or who held (or have developed) different views, or want to use a different spelling to distinguish themselves and their family from other Noongars. Anyway, as I say, I'm happy to go along with 'Noongar' as consistency is important, even though it's an inconsistent consistency!. Dougg 10:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most have agreed to use the spelling "Noongar", however, the word was never written down by the Aboriginal people as they had no written language, so Europeans have decided to spell it this way as it sounds the closest to the pronunciation of the word.

Actually it's more accurate to say that Europeans spelled it the way that sounded to them to be closest to the pronunciation of the word--there are sounds in Noongar which are not found in English and Europeans had no idea how to represent them (and typically weren't even aware of them). More recently, linguists have worked with Noongar people on these issues and that is how the current spelling system (orthography) was developed. As I have mentioned before the spelling 'Noongar' actually goes against this orthography, but it was preferred for various non-linguistic reasons (see above for a discussion on this). Dougg 22:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed some sentences in the History section to make them NPOV. Iwalters 13:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

The history section seems rather Eurocentric and speaks little of the Noongar's early history. What are their origins? How long have they populated the area?

According to Lonely Planet's Western Australia (3 ed) (ISBN 0 86442 740 9), p. 108 (admittedly not the most academic of sources, but it's what I had at hand), the Noongar people have populated the Perth area for some 40,000 years. From memory, that seems to echo what I read at a West Australian Museum exhibit as well.

If anyone can find information on this, it might also be appropriate to add relevant bits to the Perth article's History section, as its current Pre-British Colonization (sic) History section is confined to previous European sightings. In fact, in reading the article, one might be led to believe that Western Australia was as terra nullius as the British claimed.

LX 05:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the finding of stone axes on Rottnest island, that have been estimated at 70,000 years ago, I would suggest that we need to update the dating of Aboriginal residence in south west Western Australia. The 40,000 ceiling gets based upon two pieces of evidence.

the appearance of the 40,000 ceiling for Aurignacian cultures in Western Europe, commonly (and mistakenly) considered to be the apearance of the complex cultures of Upper Paleolithic Homo Sapiens.

the 40,000 year ceiling for C14 daing, which cannot accurately distinguish dates before 40,000 years. Anything before that date that is subject to C14 tends to return a 40,000 year date horizon.

Hope this helps. John D. Croft 14:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Pinjarra massacre is worth inclusion. Some documented accounts of Noongar people in Albany prior to 'settlement' exist (I will get Ref.). Is it possible for oral traditions and history to be included in the WP (systematic bias?) Fred.e 15:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Externally to this as I'm still learning to use wikipedia, but hi from 16 years later. There is strong vocal evidence of meeting places around Mandoon (Guildford) and wondered if their significance could be noted? or is it much of a muchness with Upper Swan already included. I thought with the junction of the Helena/Swan River it might be important. Amizerart (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noongar Patrol[edit]

I have heard reference of an aboriginal liason group, I am unsure if they are police officers or just employees of the police force, who deal with aboriginal people specifically when they get drunk or rowdy, apparently it has smashing success rates of reducing trouble as it removes the 'us and them' scenario prevalent in our society when it comes to indigenous crime rates and the like. Is there any chance of a reference to this bunch on this article as I'd love to read more about them and the concept behind them! Jachin 11:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the article but only in passing. Here's some links [2], [3], [4], [5]. I added it originally but I would also appreciate someone knowing more about it adding more detail. Cheers SeanMack 13:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate those links. It was interesting when I first saw the difference in Western Australia as to New South Wales as far as cultural based attitudes towards indigenous people go. To be honest the aboriginies from NSW, WA and QLD for example look like completely different nationalities, each having different behavioural traits and characteristics from environmental and cultural upbringings. I was warned to 'be careful' in Western Australia and on my first day there a group of 18 aboriginies ran down the street in underwear with war paint on smashing shop fronts and beating random people. I was slightly taken aback given that I'd never seen such behaviour, then a mini bus load of men in fluro shirts pulled up and had words with them. I swear that was more effective than some arrogant cops busting down on their arses for getting rowdy. I just couldn't believe how a small group of blokes could settle down such an angry mob. I think it's a brilliant idea! :) Jachin 03:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Native title claim[edit]

Is this the same Noongar people that is being reported a lot in the news recently? [6]

I have very little knowlege or understanding about the relevant issues, so do not feel I am qualified, but I feel there should be something about the native title claim in there. Anyone feel like volunteering? :) Chovain 00:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woops - I just noticed this is covered in "Economics". Is this the best place for it? Chovain 00:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re; Native title[edit]

It is the same people 'as seen on TV'. I think that Native Title coud do now with its own section. Economics would seem a bit mischievous as there is no effect on other titles. Fred.e 17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... or add to Current Issues section. Fred.e 17:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, native title deserves a section of its own. And while "negotiations" is better than "disputes" (edit made today by an IP address), it's also in court. And the the government is not the only respondent. Let's have a clearer statement of the situation. Callophylla 10:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added [link] to the case in question - Bennell v State of Western Australia. Arguably, this could do with a page of its own. userX 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language/Adoption into WA English[edit]

I take it "gilgie" (?jilgie) is Noongar in origin - anyone got evidence? Callophylla 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Macquarie Dictionary says gilgie/jilgie is from the Noongar word jilgi. Grant65 | Talk 00:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherax quinquecarinatus - gilgie see Australian red claw crayfish (Cherax quadricarinatus), hang on - this is not my sandbox. - Fr ed 04:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Australian Aboriginal origin

- Wilgi, a red coloured clay; Wilgie Sketching Club. First WA art society.

Just passing Fred 17:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if "boondie" for a stone to throw is also Noongar? Any ideas. John D. Croft 04:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Yagan[edit]

The reference provided states that Yagan was shot by a shepherd in return for a published reward. This is not a murder because by definition murder is an unlawful, wilful killing.

In view of this I have changed the wording of the sentence to something less emotive.Ga rr ie 09:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Aboriginal Groups of Western Australia[edit]

The Ngaanyatjarra people of the Sandy, Gibson and Victoria Desert Region of WA are covered very well. I have started articles on the Yamatji and the Wangai, which need a great deal of work. Please folks, your contributions would be gratefully received. John D. Croft 06:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'broader accent' ??[edit]

I removed the line about a 'broader accent' in the south being the reason for a different spelling. I don't know what 'broader accent' means, and I'm not sure it means anything particularly. Dougg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

subgroups -- unsourced[edit]

I've tag this section as unsourced which it is, I also have concerns of the way in which people are descibed I have never heard of a "Perth Type" to refer to a subgroup/family grouping for Indigenous peoples. My intention is to remove this particular description, and I have removed the use of "type" in the headings. Gnan garra 11:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

men, women, and Rottnest[edit]

Of Men and Women[edit]

From Madge V., "New perspective", Letters to the Editor, Victoria Park Examiner, 29 February 2012, p7ff: "I then got chatting to an elder male... He explained they are not actually the Noongar people, but Bibbulmun people. Noongar means man and Yorga means woman. Apparently the white man... asked the men who they were, they answered noongar, meaning men. And the name stuck."

Of Rottnest[edit]

About 3-5000 years ago, before the Swan River existed, the Whadjuk people would walk to Rottnest in due season, stopping at a freshwater spring now located offshore from Trigg. Then the sea levels rose, and sometime later an earthquake opened the northern end of Lake Yealering, or more probably the west end of Noonalling Lake which was fed from Lake Yealering, allowing the flow of excess water down what is now the Avon River. This encouraged the Rainbow Serpents (yes, plural) to take residence in what had previously been a fairly arid part of the world. The waters of the Avon river augmented the Canning River, and opened Blackwall Reach. 203.161.102.82 (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information on the Rottnest Island Prison Misleading[edit]

The article states that prisoners on Rottnest were sent there for "offences ranging from spearing livestock, burning the bush or digging vegetables". Yet if you follow the links to the old Sunday Times archives, you'll see that in the articles condemning the conditions of the prison, the description of some individual prisoners as rapists, murderers etc. It is misleading to imply that prisoners were only sent to Rottnest for trivial offences. Whilst conditions were appalling (by today's standards), at least some of the prisoners were hardened criminals. One of the prisoners in the 1890s apparently used to murder aboriginal women by breaking their necks. A more accurate description would be for "offences ranging from spearing livestock, burning the bush and digging vegetables to murder." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

subset of see also[edit]

(removed from text)

Other Australian Aboriginal groups

Anangu, in northern South Australia, and neighbouring parts of Western Australia and Northern Territory
Koori, in New South Wales and Victoria
Murri, in southern Queensland
Nunga, in southern South Australia
Palawah, in Tasmania.

Insufficient qualification as to why this list should be a subset of the see also - requires more than simply inclusion, unless argued otherwise JarrahTree 06:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Six seasons compared to four climatic zones[edit]

@Gnangarra: This edit compares six seasons with four climatic zones, but I don't think this makes sense. A climatic zone a covers the whole year – it is not a division of the year – so it's probably not appropriate to compare number of seasons to number of climatic zones. Was the intent to compare the 6 Noongar seasons with the 4 European seasons (summer, autumn, winter, spring)? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is something preventing you from making any improvement and see if others can quibble about that, contributing comment instead of content? I think that makes contributing more productive, and therefore pleasurable, and strongly recommend that as an alternative to what I am refraining from describing. cygnis insignis 14:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is something preventing you from making any improvement... — Yes, the fact that I don't know what point the sentence is trying to make. The edit is sufficiently ambiguous for me not to be confident in making a correction that is both factually correct and consistent with the editor's intent. So, per WP:TALK#DISCUSS I think that "the talk page is ... the place to ask about another editor's changes". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it is about Noongar so what has European season got to do with any thing. Theres a reason for 6 seasons because it better describes the changes across a year here, then that across a year in Southern Europe.Gnan garra 15:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to remember where I saw the guide published for agriculturalists, maybe the late 1940s, that detailed five distinct seasonal periods. The source said it was arrived at independently, so obvious was the difference and sequence. cygnis insignis 15:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ames is correct. The new text has to be reverted back, since it is WR:OR based on an incomprehension of the source, and is meaningless.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion of whether users may edit here, more appropriate to User talk pages.
Apropos your remark here, I don't know what extraordinary suspicion spurred you to think my commenting here was somehow coincidental with whatever. It is quite simple. I have bookmarked all pages on Aboriginal tribes, since I wrote most of them. If you wish to 'avoid' me, fine. Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are these. The source by Gaye Nayton whose content was garbled by that edit, which Ames correctly sighted as a distortion, runs as follows:

‘The southwest can be divided into four major Mediterranean climatic types differentiated by the number of dry months in the year. These vary from Moderate Mediterranean with 3-4 dry months in the extreme southwest to Semi-desert Mediterranean in the goldfields with 9-11 dry months.

To rewrite or paraphrase this as 'The Noongar peoples have six seasons compared to the four different Mediterranean-type climatic zones'

Is tantamount to totally garbling the source, and thereby creating a garbage sentence which means nothing.

Since I am on strike and not editing articles, I would add that the unsourced paragraph in the 'Noongar ecology' section requires RS, namely after 'The height of the wildflower season.' insert ^[1]^[2]^[3], and add to the bibliography the following:

Giblett, Rodney James (2013). Black Swan Lake: Life of a Wetland. Intellect Books. ISBN 978-1-841-50704-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Entwisle, Timothy (2014). Sprinter and Sprummer: Australia's Changing Seasons. Csiro Publishing. ISBN 978-1-486-30204-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
"Indigenous Weather Knowledge". Bureau of Meteorology. 2016.

Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Entwisle 2014, p. 25.
^ Gilblett 2013, p. 5.
^ IWK 2016.

Off-topic discussion of whether users may edit here, more appropriate to User talk pages.

Then that was an amazing coincidence, with fantastic odds, a chill crept up my spine. I will gather some sources and have a look in a week or two, but on the face of it I don't think that necessary. There are six seasons in Southwest Australia, that is well established in secondary and tertiary sources. The word tribe is one that should be used cautiously. The term, Nishidani, is usually cited, not "sighted", adds a bit of class when ~~go into battle~~ raise a concern about a page on your watchlist. cygnis insignis 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't see any 'coincidence' (a topic which I have a lifelong interest in). That there were no fantastic odds to my coming to this page is proven by this evidence I have edited it 61 times. Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic bickering about word choice.

As to your suggestion I should have written 'cited' and not 'sighted', the sentence is

The source by Gaye Nayton whose content was garbled by that edit, which Ames correctly sighted as a distortion, runs as follows

See to sight: 'Manage to see or observe (someone or something); catch an initial glimpse of.' Oxford English Dictionary

I'm thoroughly familiar with the anthropological critiques of the term 'tribe'. I don't think that R.M.W, Dixon was cocking a snook at or girding himself for ethnic put-downs or skewing when, as late as 2015 of the Dyirbal, Yidinj and Warrgamay he spoke of tribes, any more than Ian Clark would be in writing as late as 2014 of the Braiakaulung tribe. Had I used 'mob', the term many Aboriginal people prefer, a huge number of global readers of this page would no doubt have reported me for insinuating I consider indigenous people Caponish gangs, or a loutish crowd. The Firmament forbid. Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will gather some sources and have a look in a week or two, but on the face of it I don't think that necessary

Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear what 'that' refers to, (a) gathering sources is not necessary? (b) having a look in the near future at the page is not necessary? If (a) then

Nothing on a wiki page should be unsourced. The section is unsourced, ergo, it has to have appropriate references, two of which I readily supplied, formatting them to save editors the trouble. I meant to add them a year or two ago, but got distracted. Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the tools output on your contributions, those that have fucking edit summaries were not as amusing as the the ones I sighted [saw?, not sure any more] where you, for example, reduce a figure of antiquity and add a CN tag. Carry on with your strike, before someone gets wind of your scab work here. cygnis insignis 22:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okiedoke. Can't remember the ec re the figure from antiquity.I've no doubt done some shockers as apart of my ongoing campaign to prove I am a deleterious presence here. If you had a link I'd be curious to refresh the grey-turning-black-hole matter. ps. re 'sight/cite'. I use the former for 'took note of' the latter for quoting either a source or the ipsissima verba of its text. Ames's made a diff to a problematical change he caught sight of. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that this sort of revert, following on the other discussed above, in suggesting that the modern designation for a traditional socio-ethnic grouping was be used to describe aboriginals living in the same broad area 10,000 years ago, is an 'ideological' anachronism. We nowhere use this retroactive ethnonymizing in comparable cases (Welsh people). The archaic populations of areas attesting continuous habitation since the Paleolithic are not referred to by the names of contemporary ethnic groups. It would be like referring to the inhabitants of Ghassulian Palestine as Israelis or Palestinians. Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Noongar boodjar it always has been, its not some new contemporary ethic group. Gnan garra 09:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for six seasons see http://www.bom.gov.au/iwk/calendars/nyoongar.shtml Gnan garra 09:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RS. The one we have writes:

'The southwest of Western Australia has a rich record of human occupation extending back to 48,000 years B.P.’ ^[1]

Your assertion that the 'Noongar boodjar' ..always has been' is nonsense. One of the oldest ethnic groups, Jews, by tradition speak of their formation 4000 years ago, historically it is around 2,500 years ago, You are saying the Noongar confederation of 14 tribes, each historically with distinct dialects and customs, depending on their ecological position, existed 10,000 years ago. Well, were that so, you would have to show editors what happened to the local people who lived there 48,000 years ago to transform them into 'Noongar'. Were they self-identifying as 'Noongar' 48,000 years ago, or did something associated with the quartz-chert transition establish that identity much later? Since no reputable source will confirm that assertion, your remarks is WP:OR, if not sheer improbable fantasy. Nothing on Wikipedia must get in unless it has sound documentary support. So what you wrote must be reverted in accordance with our obligations to hew to the documentary record. Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As to the sentence tampered with to make for

As early as 10,000 BP Noongar utilised quartz, replacing chert flint for spear and knife edges when the chert deposits were submerged by sea level rise during the Flandrian transgression

Latest research challenges the old view that the chert used had an offshore provenance, by hazarding long-distance trading sources. So that should read:-

The people indigenous to the South-West made a slow transition from using chert to knapping quartz in fashioning flints for spear and knife edges, starting around 12,000 BP, roughly contemporaneously with the onset of the Flandrian transgression. ^[2]

And that should be transposed to a section on the prehistory of this zone.

Add to bibliography

J. O'Leary, Michael; Ward, Ingrid; Key, Marcus M.; Burkhart, Mackenze S.; Rawson, Chris; Evans, Noreen (January 2017). "Challenging the 'offshore hypothesis' for fossiliferous chert artefacts in southwestern Australia and consideration of inland trade routes" (PDF). Quaternary Science Reviews: 36–46. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

References

^ O’Leary et al. 2017, p. 36.
^ O’Leary et al. 2017, pp. 42–44.

@Gnangarra: You asked "what has European season got to do with any thing" — I used the term "European" (as in "European Australian") because I thought it less offensive than "white fella's seasons". Regardless of the adjective used to distinguish the 4 traditional seasons of spring, summer, autumn and winter from the 6 Noongar seasons, my question stands - did you intend to compare the number of Noongar seasons with the number of non-Noongar seasons rather than climatic zones? (I'm not disputing the number of Noongar seasons, only the "apples to oranges" comparison of seasons to climatic zones.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is an article about Noongar European is irrelevant, Med only applies to a part of Nongar country Gnan garra 12:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - the word "European" is irrelevant. But the problem remains that the article text currently refers to "six seasons compared to the four different Mediterranean-type climatic zones" - and seasons are simply not comparable with climatic zones - the words describe different concepts. That part of Australia could have 6 seasons and 4 climatic zones, but it does not make sense to "compare" them.

Possibly what it should say is "six seasons ~~compared to the~~ across four different Mediterranean-type climatic zones". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should say 'The Noongar peoples have six seasons who's time frame is defined by specific observable changes to the environment, with a dry period varying from as few as three to as many as eleven months Gnan garra 13:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While that's a nice accommodation among editors, it violates wiki protocols. One does not edit according to what an informant tells one, but according to RS, and Gnangarra's proposal has, again, problems.

Source

‘The southwest can be divided into four major Mediterranean climatic types differentiated by the number of dry months in the year. These vary from Moderate Mediterranean with 3-4 dry months in the extreme southwest to Semi-desert Mediterranean in the goldfields with 9-11 dry months. ^[1]

^ Nayton 2011, p. 12.

Redaction

The Noongar peoples have six seasons whose time frame is defined by specific observable changes to the environment, with a dry period varying from as few as three to as many as eleven months.^[1]

^ Nayton 2011, p. 12.

Since the putative paraphrase does not reflect what the source says, the source should be removed and a cn notification entered. Please note, for starters, that people do not ‘have seasons’: climatic/ecological zones do. (b) the objection to 'European' is culturally understandable, but we are writing an Encyclopedia in English, and when you speak of Mediterranean climate types, the scientific reference is a typology, the Köppen climate classification. (c) the description of a 6 season Noongar system with roughly 2 month periodization cannot refer to all ecological areas in the Nyungar zone. Those groups that had an 11 month dry spell would not have had the coastal six season/two months apiece division. What evidence is there that the Njakinjaki, Wudjari and Njunga Semi-arid climate lands, all within the Nyungar classification, had the same division as the coastal Pindjarup? None, as far as I can see. That is why Nayton's specification is crucial. While we need an overall article like this, the tendency to erase regional variations and cancel distinctions into a mush of sameness is ideological/political. You can see a good example of what happens when you do this in any number of articles. Take Nuytsia floribunda (Muattyaur). It reads:-

'The Nyungar people made use of the species during the season Kambarang, around October to early December, obtaining bark to make shields. The gum that exudes from the wound can be collected later, it is sweet and eaten raw.[16] Moodjar (or Muja) is regarded as a protected tree by the Nyungar peoples of Southwest Australia, the species is noted as being incorporated into rituals and having a conservation status that forbids their destruction.'

No. This species was subject to strict protection among western coast groups like the Mineng, Bibulman and Whadjuk who considered it to have high religious importance and therefore was not to be disturbed, whereas other Noongar harvested it for food or to use its flowers for embellishment. As this is rewritten, all Nyungar have the same approach to the plant, the 'tribal' distinctions are spread so that all Nyungar consider it edible and simultaneously 'protected'. Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion of user behavior more appropriate to User talk pages.

Comments: Fraudulent edits in the page history, demands that others make edits for you (because of your strike), and ever shifting goalposts on what is satisfactory to an increasingly reactionary viewpoint. All this reeks of not here for improvements, just exercising some frustration by making others jump. cygnis insignis 17:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Another personal attack, breathing enmity and flaunting a superb ignorance of the topic married to a self-assurance about the accuracy of insight into my worldview. I nowhere made a 'demand' on other editors. I stated what the problems were, suggested fixes, necessary in my view. Do you know anything about this topic? Do you know that the Mineng, a Nyungar people, did not use the terms we are told on this page were their words for the six seasons. They didn't say:Birak;Bunuru; Djeran;Makuru;Djilba;Kambarang, as is asserted here.

I said I would go on strike as long as Fram's suspension lasted. These notes will form the basis, if I'm still kicking, for going through this article like a dose of salts, and making it conform to the factual ethnographic record, not according to editorial whimsy, personal 'knowledge' or some political beef . It's news to me that strict adherence to WP:RS is 'reactionary'. Does that merit a 'LOL!' which young folks write these days? Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read the personal attacks you make as a thin skinned response to be called out on what I stated and can verify, not mind-reading and arrogance. Ping me when the strike ends, although I don't see how it can be until every asshole with an OED is given a full pardon and the means to administer reprisals against community members who got them into grief.

Since your last remark alludes patently to my referring you to the OED, I presume you mean I am one of the arseholes in question? Remember, you made a huge misprision trying to read behind my showing up here, some ‘amazing coincidence’ that ‘sent a chill up your spine’. You made a personal insinuation – there was something odd about my editing this page after you did -out of the blue, without any provocation, and have persisted ever since. If you have any evidence I have made personal attacks here, instead of whispering and alluding to some silly idea you have proof (‘can be verified’) you should go and complain and ask for a sanction at the appropriate board. If you cannot evaluate coolly the evidence and respond analytically to the proposals given above, but just make snarky remarks feigning some laughable competence in online psychological sleuthing, I fail to see the point of your petty gambit or even why you appear to think editing talk pages is a form of psychological chess.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you are bluffing, a poseur, it doesn't require any great insight. There was an extraordinary coincidence and you seem to know what that was without me saying, if you had never edited this page then I would be crying blue murder, as it was your edits, and the ones I looked at were tendentious or fraudulent, reinforce my prejudice about what the strikers are really fearful of: the imagined privilege of unfree men to harangue those they deem as subordinate. cygnis insignis 03:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I supplied an impeccable source for the six seasons, this is an article about Noongar so the sourcing and information should reflect what, how, why, where of Noongar rather than some European system, at absolute best it should be comparative which I started with and no one liked. Noongar covers an area that isnt even solely a Mediterranean climate zone, in the Southwest it includes snow fields and the north, to the east and south east its desert, centrally for the majority of its area its dry savanna. Secondly the other issue is speak in past tense, then arguing that Noongar wasnt noongar 10,000 years ago when when every source acknowledges that the area has been Noongar country for 60-70,000 years at least. Noongar historical records include the climatic changes 15,000 years ago and is supported by scientific records about the cert being from an area that is now under water. How chose sources, how we present information remember WP:NPOV and WP:BLP speaking about a people and culture that has and still exists in the past tense violates all of those policies and is why systemic bias is an ongoing issue across the movement. It's why its never going to be resolved, it'll continue while so call good editors continue to drive anyone who doesnt agree with them away. Gnan garra 02:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noongar covers an area that isnt even solely a Mediterranean climate zone, in the Southwest it includes snow fields and the north, to the east and south east its desert, centrally for the majority of its area its dry savanna.

This is your personal view. The source you are modifying disagrees. It was written by a qualified archaeologist, Gaye Nayton. In stating a snow fields/desert range as disproof of the adequacy of Nayton's description, you appear to ignore the fact that the word Mediterranean in climate typology does not refer to southern Europe. It is a type defining areas of California, southern Turkey, central Iraq, northern Iran the Morocco littoral etc, as well as Italy and Greece. Mediterranean climate zone type CSA can occur in areas with arid or semi-arid summers, and severe winters with snowfall. Whatever, wiki editors are not permitted to use personal views to challenge RS content. Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe, ethnic group, ethnonym

Noongar historical records include the climatic changes 15,000 years ago

There is no such thing as 'Noongar historical records' for events 15,000 years ago, anymore than there are Chinese, Syrian,Algonquin historical records for that prehistorical date.

No one is driving anyone else away. This ia a matter of being disposed to accepting that, if one errs, which we all do, that error when reflected in an encyclopedia, must be corrected. There are all sorts of problems with this page, understandable because even respectable sources get things wrong. We have 14 distinct groups, but below they speak 13 dialects (which one is missing?). Two of those groups, the Amangu and Njakinjaki spoke languages that may not be dialects of Nyungar, but perhaps were dialects of, in the case of Amangu, the Kartu Nhanda language, and in the case of the Njakinjaki, of Kalaamaya. Noongar is an ethnonym, covering roughly tribes in the non-circumcising zone of southwestern Australia, inclusive of perhaps a few groups that did not speak any of the dialects of Nyungar, whose territory encompassed widely differing climatic zones. There is absolutely nothing offensive to indigenous sensibilities in stating this, or remarking that, just as dialects within the continuum were at times mutually unintelligible, so too climatic realities and cultural practices showed notable variations. To answer my question below, which illustrates the point, Scott Nind's vocabulary for the six seasons recognized by people living in the King George Sound area, reasonably inferred by many to refer to the Mineng, who form one of the 14 Noongar peoples, states that the six seasons were:

Mawkur, Meerningal , Maungernan, Beruc, Meertilluc, and Pourer,

not

Birak, Bunuru,Djeran; Makuru;Djilba and Kambarang.

The fix is simple, very simple, adding, for example, notes or clarifications along the lines that Rosendo Salvado's informants at New Norcia mainly affirmed there were four seasons (this may well reflect the fact that many of the people he spoke to were uprooted Njunga) and that the six terms favoured by contemporary Nonngar are those of, is it, the Whadjuk or whatever dialect provided them.Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it should be comparative which I started with and no one liked — I raised the original objection because you were comparing different things - seasons to climatic zones. If you want compare the Noongar seasons to something, compare them to other seasons (or appropriate "divisions of the year"), not climatic zones. That's why I initially asked whether your intent was to compare the Noongar seasons to the four European/traditional seasons summer, autumn, winter spring.

Note that I'm not expressing an opinion on whether or not there are 6 seasons - I'm merely saying that any comparison should be between things that are actually comparable.

the other issue ... arguing that Noongar wasnt noongar 10,000 years ago — The issue of what word we use to refer to the people is independent of the "seasons/climatic zones" issue. Could editors who want to discuss "how to refer to the people" please create a separate section for that discussion. Per WP:TALKNEW: Make a new heading for a new topic.

Mitch Ames (talk) 06:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch Ames: please excuse my part in that, it got out of hand, and I mean no disrespect when I suggest that edits are simpler than comments and I know you are capable of challenging, accepting, and improving content. cygnis insignis 12:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gnangarra

I see no one (ec, save now Ames partially) is responding to the technical issues. Okay. let me rephrase one in simple logical terms.

The Nyungar people are constituted by 14 groups, one of which is the Mineng.(agreed)
The Nyungar divide the annual cycle into six seasons. (agreed)
The Nyungar names for these six seasons are

Birak;Bunuru; Djeran; Makuru; Djilba; Kambarang.

Therefore you are saying that for each subset of the Nyungar these are the default terms, and therefore you are asserting that the Mineng used these terms.

Is that your position? Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat arbitrary break: sources[edit]

Added a break to discuss sources. This section was getting too long, and it was getting impossible to figure out the proper indent to respond to something written at tab level 5 several pages up.

To a comment by Nishidani above, I've added the three proposed sources Giblett-2013, Entwisle-2014, ABOM-2016 using WorldCat to augment the references more fully. Also added the sfn's as suggested; note, these have been augmented with direct-to-section links using the |loc= param, which permits more apt refs per season bullet. (Note: ABOM-2016 is the one you identified as IWK-2016 w/o author; but WorldCat lists an institutional author, and author-linked it to the WP article.) Mathglot (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How this section got so long, and what to do about it[edit]

Added another break, because the comment below responds to the meta-topic of how to manage this section, and is not about the topic of sources.

Collapsed discussion about the discussion per NOMETA

That is very considerate of you. The talk section is long because I pose problems, and cite new texts, only to be talked at, insulted, or ignored. I'm still waiting for someone to actually analyse the issues I raised, otherwise I will just be condemned to talking to myself. It's a classic case of the marriage of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and not assuming good faith, and there's nothing I can do about it.Nishidani (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching. I do understand what you are saying, and how it got long. Without commenting (yet) on the content or the substance of what you just said, I'd just like to echo Mitch Ames who was completely accurate in saying ...please create a separate section for that discussion. Per WP:TALKNEW. Part of the problem here is not only that the section is long, but potentially more serious, is that it jumps from topic to topic, and back again, and makes it difficult to follow. One thing to consider: when you are raising an issue, look at the title of the section you're editing, and if your comments aren't about the section title topic, create a new section, with a new title (or subsection title, as appropriate) per WP:TALKNEW.

I've added another subsection header, because this sub-topic (which is very META, so we really shouldn't be having it here, although as the intent is to improve the article by improving this discussion, hopefully it squeaks by) is *not* about sources, so didn't belong in that subsection.

When I saw the long discussion, I tried to slog through it, and got part way (that is, part way in following; I read it all the way through a few times). Then I more or less gave up; why should I break my head trying to understand it, as an unpaid volunteer? This section should probably be (wild guess:) four or five sections; maybe Mitch, who's been around this discussion longer than I, could volunteer to break it up by adding some internal H3 breaks?

Also, some parts of the discussion should, as he said, should have been broken out into new topics, but fixing that after the fact, is problematic due to WP:TPO: if caught early enough it could have been refactored, but in theory at least, one may not alter the content or position of edits by other authors, as it may change their intent; also, comments by editors who came in and commented later may make no sense if preceding content is moved somewhere else. So, that makes it harder to fix things retroactively, unless you catch it quickly.

There's a technique that may help here, which is instead of moving material on different topics, just box up and background-highlight certain o/t sections; this is also a technical violation of TPO, but doesn't change actual wording or position, and if done with intent to render the whole thing more understandable, would probably be accepted by most editors. And of course if someone disagrees, they can always revert a TPO violation. Let me try and see if I can do that, to help make some sense out this section.

I'll come back later, hopefully, and try to comment on the content disagreements here. But I see that as a hopeless exercise given the current state of the section. For now, please stand by, and just watch for some internal breaks that weren't there before, or some boxes (bordered sections, or colored sections) and see if that helps or hinders. If you disagree, or you think it doesn't help, just revert me. Hopefully Mitch is watching too.

And, I hope I can take this for granted: but if you reply in this subsection, it should be exclusively about the issue of how this section got long, and what we should do about it. Although, as I said, it's rather META, so hopefuly it will not draw much comment, and then I will collapse it per WP:TPO as somewhat o/t for the main topic, which, let's remember, is about seasons! Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see, the section currently discusses (at least) the following topics:

The original problem that I raised - that of an invalid comparison of seasons to climatic zones. This has now actually been fixed, in that the article no longer has that invalid comparison. (The article may or may not be factually correct, but it no longer makes the invalid comparison.)
Whether the Noongar actually have 6 seasons, and what they are called.
Whether it is appropriate to refer the people as "Noongar" when referring to the distance past (e.g., 15,000 years ago).
Discussions about editors, instead of the article.

Item 4 clearly ought not be here at all, per WP:NPA, WP:AVOIDYOU.

Item 3 can and should be a separate discussion/section. In the absence of any definite indication to the contrary, the name of the people is independent of the number of seasons and the climatic zones. (It is possible that someone might make a well-sourced assertion that, for example, 10,000 years ago there were significantly different people (or groups of people) on what is now Noongar country, and that those people had different seasons to what the Noongar define today.)

Item 2, the number of seasons the Noongar define, is tangentially related to the original issue, but possibly because I thought (apparently incorrectly) that Gnangarra might have been intending to compare the number of Noongar seasons to the number of European/traditional seasons. However in the absence of a comparison in the article between numbers of seasons, it is irrelevant to item 1.

As I mentioned, item 1 has now been addressed, so I suggest that this discussion "Six seasons compared to four climatic zones" be closed, and that new, separate sections be created for discussing items 2 and 3 if appropriate. The only reason I'm not doing it myself is because {{Discussion top}} says "should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators", but I'd be happy for anyone else to do it. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Item 1 hasn't been addressed. Wikipedia goes by sources. What happened was that we had a rewrite of the source by Gnangarra essentially ignoring it, (b) your (Mitch Ames) rewrite of the rewrite in order to make sense of the sentence introduced. None of this compromise took into account the actual wording of the source. It merely gutted what Gnangarra, for his own reasons, found unacceptable. Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've addressed 4. discussions about editors in a collapse box above; I may not have gotten all of it, or other examples of same. I'm about to box a section (3. what they're called) as a sidebar, but generally agree with you about hatting the discussion. Give me a little bit to try to clean it up a bit further, and maybe we can close it tomorrow? Really appreciate your comments and suggestions here, I think you nailed it. Mathglot (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I object to hatting anything not resolved. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, which are required to be paraphrased closely, not clipped of what they say in key parts, because one editor dislikes that part of the content. I appreciate your boxing the various arguments into separate sections, however.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed as promised, after meta-discussion became quiescent. Mathglot (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How long sw WA has been inhabited and by whom[edit]

Noongar means ‘a person of the south-west of Western Australia,’ or the name for the ‘original inhabitants of the south-west of Western Australia’ and we are one of the largest Aboriginal cultural blocks in Australia. Noongar boodja – (country) covers the entire south-western portion of Western Australia. The boundary commences on the west coast at a point north of Jurien Bay, proceeds roughly easterly to a point approximately north of Moora and then roughly south-east to a point on the southern coast between Bremer Bay and Esperance. There is no evidence that there has been any other group than Noongar in the South-West. Archaeological evidence establishes that we Noongar have lived in the area and had possession of tracts of land on our country for at least 45,000 years. -- http://www.noongar.org.au/ Facts;

1 - this article is about Noongar that they people both with a past present and future, all tense should reflect that.
2 - its undisputed that Noongar are the traditional owners and have been for 45,000 years plus.
3 - Noongar history is passed orally from generation to generation over time,

lets start with just one source, read https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/145797/1/PL-C124.pdf HANDBOOK OF WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL LANGUAGES SOUTH OF THE KIMBERLEY REGION by Department of Linguistics Research School of Pacific Studies THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, take note of 4 & 16 though it wouldnt hurt to actually read the whole lot between 4 & 16, then see pages 33-69. for a start on issues about language. After that we can talk about pronunciation and how the spoken word differs from the north to the south with the emphasis shifting from the first vowel and trailing off to having the emphasis on the last vowel, who the words were written down not by linguists but collected by general settlers, how the spellings are the result of the individual who wrote the word down based on what they understood to represent the sound, be they French, German, Spanish, Latin or the various english speakers. Contemporary sources, include the works of the Bunbury Language centre, those Kim Scott, Len Collard and many others all of Noongar heritage have extensively addressed the works. Elders have since the 1990's agreed to standard Nyungar language form specifically for the teaching of Noongar in Schools. For every word its easy to find to find a dozen different spelling but for which most of them are exactly the same when pronounced. Gnan garra 09:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True. cygnis insignis 10:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Immaterial. I asked why the Mineng, who are Nyungar, used completely different words for the six seasons than those cited in our text. The difference is not an issue of pronunciation.Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it is. I'm familiar with why records vary, mainly in the southwest region, but not with any ethnographic survey or literature review on this particular matter. Where do Mineng people say differently, or where that is faithfully reported. cygnis insignis 15:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source. Scott Nind, 'Description of the Natives of King George's Sound (Swan River Colony) and Adjoining Country 1831,' Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London Volume 1, 1831 pp.21-51 p.50 (Mawkur, Meerlaingal, Maungernan, Beruc, Meertillue, Pourner)

Secondary source. John Charles Ryan,'Toward a Phen(omen)ology of the Seasons: The Emergence of the Indigenous Weather Knowledge Project (IWKP),' in Environment, Space, Place, Volume 5, No. 1 (Spring 2013), pp. 103-131 p.119 Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I may be reading a preprint, are you referencing the part where Ryan discussed Salvado? Nind's list is not as useful as one might expect. Could be I am blind to your point, as I am reasonably familiar with all these authors and not reading it in the same way. cygnis insignis 18:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed referencing the part where Salvado and Nind are mentioned. Salvado using Njunga informants, from a different ecozone but still now Noongar, stated in their case there were 4 seasons. Why is Nind's list- giving 6 names for the seasons that differ from those we use, not useful? He does make it quite clear that the Meananger are the people he interviewed, and secondary sources equate the Meananger with Mineng. The Mineng had 6 seasons, but had totally different names for them. The Mineng are now part of the Noongar block. Nyungar as a generic ethonym came into common use in the 1940s, just as Kumeyaay came into common use in the same decade, to describe people who, earlier, self-identified with their clans, or as Tiipay, Iipay or Kumeyaay. The analogy is perfect. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think it could be as simple as a contrived premise, at odds with the conclusion of the source; is the source being contested? Ryan accounts for Salvado's record in a different way, reasonable enough given the methods, stating the bishop "might reflect an intractable four-season logos". Using Salvado was a curious choice as a source, although valuable within context, its not clear why he chose him and Bates, who is wonky in a different way to Nind. cygnis insignis 21:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnangarra:, Regarding your point 2 above, can you add a quotation from a reliable source that makes this assertion about "Noongar" and "45,000 years", and copy it below? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to their traditional beliefs, Noongar people have lived in the South West of Western Australia since time immemorial. Archaeological evidence from Perth and Albany confirms that the region has been occupied for at least 45,000 years, with some caves at Devil's Lair in the hills near Margaret River showing human habitation from 47,000 years ago. - https://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/swnts/Noongar-Heritage-and-History/Pages/Noongar-History.aspx Gnan garra 12:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an answer to the precise question posed. We all know the region was inhabited for tens of thousands of years. Your formulation suggests that the prehistoric inhabitants were those people we now know collectively as 'Nyungar'. You need an authoritative set of sources stating that the Nyungar people took possession of the SW 45,000 years ago, just as one would need a source to assert that the paleolithic people first attested 6,000+ years ago in England were 'English', or that the people Caesar conquered in Gaul were 'French'. It is just not accepted anywhere to make this retroactive use of modern ethnonyms for the deep prehistoric period, anywhere, and why this article should prove the exception is beyond human understanding.Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gnangarra, what you quoted does not provide a quotation that supports your point #2. Read your quotation again: it makes two unconnected claims, one about folk tradition, and one about evidence:

"Noongar traditional beliefs say X" (where 'X' = Noongar lived there since time immemorial).
"Evidence shows Y" (where 'Y' = region occupied for 45,000 years)

X and Y are two separate claims, that are unconnected. You understand that per the requirements of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, you cannot use oral tradition (#1) to support an assertion about longevity of a particular group of peoples, right? You could use it to make an assertion about what the oral beliefs are: for exanple, you could say: "The Noongar believe they have been in the area since the beginning of time." because that is a statement about a belief that can be attributed to traditional belief, but you cannot use point #1 to say in Wikipedia's voice that "The Noongar have been in the area since the beginning of time" because that is a statement about a fact that requires evidence, and the quotation does not say that.

The second point is about archaeological evidence, and it says nothing about the Noongar, only about human beings. Again, per the Verifiability policy, you could use point #2 to say, "Humans have lived in the region for around 45,000 years" in the article in Wikipedia's voice, because the quotation supports that statement; however, by Wikipedia's Verifiability requirements you cannot use that quotation to say, "Noongar have lived in the region for around 45,000 years" because the quotation does not make that claim. If you make that claim, you are drawing a personal conclusion about something not stated or implied in the source, which is a violation of WP:SYNTH. If the source doesn't say it, neither can Wikipedia.

Do you understand why the quotation you provided does not support the claim of Noongar living in the area for 45,000 years? Verifiability is a crucial part of Wikipedia's second pillar, one of five foundational principles upon which the encyclopedia is constructed.

So, I ask again: can you add a quotation from a reliable source that makes an assertion about "Noongar" and "45,000 years", and copy it below? Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point two falsifies almost every proposed date except the one asserted at the outset: point 1. cygnis insignis 22:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the Australia Federal Court ruling on Native title in the SW its conclusion is fact that Noongar people are the traditional owners of the land, as per the evidence presented to the court, if there had been any doubt the this would not have gone a head. Do you have any evidence to assert that Nyungar are not people or that there is an error in the case because it appears to be regardless of what sources of the many thousands available through google and thousands of written sources not on google that the moment a source says people instead of Nyungar you will claim that Nyungars arent people so it pointless continuing to discussing as you prefer a source that set about facilitating genocide and the rape of Nyungars. Gnan garra 03:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gnangarra, I don’t know who you are talking to. Trying to keep this section on track. Please don’t add thousands of references; two or three would suffice. Please add a quotation and link below that supports your assertion about the longevity of Noongars. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did diff Gnan garra 05:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. My conclusion from that diff is that you either do not have a reference that supports your claim, or that you do not understand Wikipedia’s Verfiability policy. If it is the latter, that is not a subject that is appropriate to discuss here at an article Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That reference is an Australian government website, the information has challenged in the Federal Court, it confirms that Nyungar people have been here for at least 45,000 years. That is supported by archeological evidence and has been peer reviewed, if there was any doubt about this being factual then this case worth billions of dollars would have uncovered it. The only person here who doesnt know Wikipedias policies is you, you challenge the evidence bring something substantial from reliable sources that support your position. There are more sources out there that support this one. Gnan garra 06:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your adding more sources, but this one does not support your claim. Please do add more. Mathglot (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Archaeological evidence establishes that we Noongar have lived in the area and had possession of tracts of land on our country for at least 45,000 years." original post Gnan garra 07:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This consists of two statements. A (a) Noongar belief cited in a lands claim, and (b) an archaeological statement. You cannot combine the two and make 'Noongar' (a) the subject of (b). This is WP:SYNTH. I have numerous archaeological reports, many sponsored by Noongar, which speak of human habitation in the area, without ever stating that those people 45,000 years ago were Noongar. To assert that is to fly in the face of standard scholarly assessments of highy antiquity, where the attribution of a modern ethnicity to a prehistorical people is frowned upon. They are called generically humans, and defined according to the geo-climatic era name.Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: There's no reason for any of us to reply further in this section; we have consensus, we're reading the policy correctly, and the article wording is correct. I suggest we draw a line in the sand here, and move on. Gnangarra may have the last word if you like; it won't change anything. Mathglot (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: I don't understand what's wrong with using "Archaeological evidence establishes that we Noongar have lived in the area and had possession of tracts of land on our country for at least 45,000 years."

That sentence does not mention beliefs. It unambiguously asserts that "... Noongar have lived in the area ... for at least 45,000 years", according to archaeological evidence. Citing the archaeological evidence directly might be better, but it might also be considered a primary source. Do we consider noongar.org.au to be a reliable secondary source? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing a different source. Your source states

(a) There is no evidence that there has been any other group than Noongar in the South-West.(b) Archaeological evidence establishes that we Noongar have lived in the area and had possession of tracts of land on our country for at least 45,000 years.

(a) is an argumentum ex silentio, which, logically would on equal grounds applies to 'Noongar' themselves. We don't know the 'identity' of people who lived in the earliest period. Migrations exist, you know. (b)45,000 years is flawed, since the scientific data put that at 50,000. Carelessness. Since logic isn't working here, reframe that statement in an analogy, whose preposterousness will be immediately self-evident.

There is no evidence that there has been any other group than Arabs/Jews in Palestine. Archaeological evidence establishes that we Arabs/Jews have lived in the area and had possession of tracts of land on our country for at least 45,000 years.

This is all fucking obvious, to use a Framism.Nishidani (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your source states ... (a) There is no evidence that there has been any other group than Noongar in the South-West ... — I did not mention that sentence at all; my question was about (b) "Archaeological evidence establishes that we Noongar have lived in the area...". Never mind, Mathglot has answered the question, politely. [7][8] Mitch Ames (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, this is silly. You cited a source, and I complemented you truncated citation by adding the introductory sentence, which should alert any reader that what follows is dubious. Every serious editor examines the total context. A Noongar declaration about archaeological results has no value, esp. when we have independent access to the primary and secondary scholarly literature on this topic in SWA archaeology, precisely what the Noongar statement draws on. Why is anyone niggling about this? It is standard procedure, and discourteous to laboriously drag out the p's and q's of the obvious.Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't checking the text, so I see that attribution of a Noongar identity to people living 45,000 years ago has been removed satisfactorily. Just a note that we need to retain the early habitation date. There is an excellent source, sponsored by the Noongar for that period (and it describes the climate as of the Mediterranean typology pp.121-122):

Dortch, Joe; Jane Balme, Jane; Ogilvie, Jane (2012). "Aboriginal Responses to Late Quaternary change in a Mediterranean-type region:Zooarchaeological evidence from south-western Australia" (PDF). Quaternary International (264): 121–134. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

@Mitch Ames: Mitch, what's wrong with it, is that it fails independence. See #Reliability of sources used in the article, below, for details; especially this section. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only fix need otherwise for the six season bit is to clarify that the names for the six seasons could vary according to 'tribe', but the Noongar now employ the the following standard terms . . (the Mineng list needs to be placed on that page)Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalip v. smugness on the internet, only one is true. cygnis insignis 14:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that meant as another personal attack? Your comments throughout this thread read like fishing expeditions that appear to be aimed at eliciting a sharp reply which, like your own remarks, could be sanctioned. Count yourself lucky that I do not report WP:AGF violations directed at myself. Whatever, please note that illiterate additions to maintext such as this are not acceptable, as is persistently attempting to 'spin' the idea that population of SW Australia 45,000 was Noongar.Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pot calling the kettle black please note that illiterate additions to maintext such as, Gnan garra 02:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let me spell it out for you: Several times you changed the text, and even when warned above, you still persist in adding the following statement:-

Before the arrival of Europeans, the Noongar population has been estimated at 45,000 years BCE,

Since you can't spot why that formulation is 'illiterate', I'll have to point out the obvious.

No human population can be estimated in terms of years. People are one thing, dates are another. To make a category confusion between the two, using the figure for length of habitation (45,000 years) as a clue to how many Noongar there were (45,000 people), is evidence either you don't examine what you are asserting, while writing, or, even when tipped off, being unable to sight the elementary verbal muddle in the edit you concocted (which has been repeatedly restored per WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT against the consensus of editors. This is not an editing problem any more but a behavioural issue, and someone needs to warn you that persisting in this ideological way, in total contempt of the evidence and of grammar, will almost inevitably lead to a sanction. Nishidani (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All this rudeness, arrogance and threats is merely deflection, you haven't responded to inquiries on your interpretation of sources, eg Salvado above and altering information without reference to a source. Crude denialism is all I find in you contribs here, not here for improvements. cygnis insignis 09:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unfocused. I alluded to Salvado, I didn't suggest an edit regarding him, and (b) I didn't alter information in the article, or cite information here without a source. Your remarks are often too oblique to grasp, in any case.

As again, you are reading into my impatience with poor, source-insouciant, indifferent edits an 'arrogance', and read as a threat my obligatory warning that persistent reverting against a rough consensus and sources constitutes evidence for reportable behavior. To date, you haven't fixed any of Gnangarra's slipshod edits, but stand by and kibitz only to comment on what you think are the psychological dynamics of my editing. This is good if you want to get in the target a laugh, but otherwise pointless.

Do something useful: if I point out an egregious error made by that editor, and he is reluctant to fix it, indeed persists in reinserting it, step up and emend it for him. That, cygnis insignis, is what independent, neutral participation requires. This is no place to personalize content conflicts as indexes of some arrogant 'psychopathology' at work.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You edited it to say 6000 years it had a citation required tag, I went to source at the end of the sentence and it clearly states 45,000 so I removed the uncited 6000 and put 45000 which is as per the source that is being used in the article. You continually just say "we" dont do that and remove, yet this article is about Noongars as thats what they are stating, and what has been challenged and is accepted as fact by courts in Australia. as per the sources cited then thats what should be there. I pointed out the Salvado established a place for genoicide, rape, and force removal of children. Source from Salvado need to be considered in the light of what he set in place recognise that they are the basis for such events. Secondly all the language in use is past tense implying that Noongar dont exist, I recommend you start at History Wars and consider what sources you are using and whether they actually constitute a reliable source, and that you also look at your selection of words as so they comply with Neutral Point of View. As for the personal insults you and Mathglot have been throwing around the claims of consensus when it isnt there go for it I've experience much worse even on here in the last 15 years, I expect it to continue purely because its an Indigenous Australian article. Salvado was the only person to record Noongar language that uses "ch", much of what you are refering to written proof of variants is because of the person who wrote it down. I suggest look to works of Len Collard, Kim Scott, SWALASC and the Bunbury language Centre more accurate information on language. Gnan garra 10:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To focus on what is being discussed, the immediate problem, will you kindly fix the garbled sentence you keep reintroducing. It makes no sense, and the date is wrong. I.e.

Before the arrival of Europeans, the Noongar population has been estimated at 45,000 years BCE.

I trust you will do this simple correction, since it is obviously flawed. In anticipation Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability challenge[edit]

Version 906814849 contained an assertion about tribal age that is unverified. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Since that was not provided, I have removed the assertion.

I now hereby officially challenge the removed assertion. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability challenges, "You may not restore unsourced material to an article after it has been WP:CHALLENGEd, unless you provide an inline citation to a reliable source that supports the material." Any attempt to restore this material in a manner that is contrary to policy, will be considered disruptive editing. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Will you accept the below (the second being a summary of the first)?

Malaspinas, Anna-Sapfo; Westaway, Michael C.; Muller, Craig; Sousa, Vitor C.; Lao, Oscar; Alves, Isabel; et al. (21 September 2016). "A genomic history of Aboriginal Australia". Nature. 538 (7624): 207–214. doi:10.1038/nature18299. Retrieved 21 July 2019.

St John's College, Cambridge (21 September 2016). "Unprecedented study of Aboriginal Australians points to one shared Out of Africa migration for modern humans". University of Cambridge. Retrieved 21 July 2019.

Betterkeks (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you could cite precisely the passages in those two sources where the solecistic statement which Mathgot is asking to be verified finds RS confirmation. I've examined both and cannot find anything. The statement is

Before the arrival of Europeans, the Noongar population has been estimated at 45,000 years BCE.

The assertion being challenged by Mathglot is: Noongar have lived in the South West of Western Australia for at least 45,000 years.

Eske Willerslev, one of the 75 authors of the paper offered above and who initiated and led the research, summarises its findings in a six minute video which may be found in the second citation above. In this context the key findings summarised are that a single wave of modern humans split up upon entering Australia and spread out rapidly favouring the coast, without interacting much for a very long time because they significantly diversified genetically. There was some flow of genes, but there was a single wave only, and once they stopped spreading they stayed put.

In challenging the assertion that Noongar have lived in the South West of Western Australia for at least 45,000 years, Mathglot is asserting that someone else was inhabiting the South West before Noongar. That is contrary to what Noongar, courts, and these 75 authors are saying.

Betterkeks (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 23:55, 21 July 2019, User:Betterkeks wrote:

Will you accept the below (the second being a summary of the first)?

No to the first. (By "accept", I assume you mean, "accept it as a reliable source verifying the challenged assertion that was removed from the article.") That article appears to be 21 pages of densely written academic text and graphic material. I admit to not reading the entire thing, however I did a search for the term Nyungan (their spelling) as well as the term kya (thousands of years ago) and I see nothing to support the assertion. Btw, thanks for linking that article; I'm enjoying reading it, and plan to go through it again, in more detail. However if I missed something, and you see proof in that article, please quote it below.

No also, to the second article. The term Nyungan appears three times; the assertion is not verified.

You also wrote:

In challenging the assertion that Noongar have lived in the South West of Western Australia for at least 45,000 years, Mathglot is asserting that someone else was inhabiting the South West before Noongar.

Rubbish; I made no such assertion; those are your words. This verifiability challenge is not about what I did (or didn't) say, it is about unsourced material removed from the article as unverifiable. If you want to reinstate that claim, you don't need 75 authors; one independent, secondary, reliable source would be a good start. (Two or three would be better, since it's controversial.) But let's start with just one. Please provide it below.

You get that this is partly about naming, and not only about habitation, right? We don't say that "French painters painted horses, deer, and aurochs in the cave paintings in Lascaux, France, 17,000 years ago" and you understand why not, right? They might have been the great-great-great-<lots-more-great>-grandfather of the French who live in that town today, but they weren't French, 17,000 years ago. If I find a source that say those cave painters were French, I will change the Lascaux article myself. (Note that by the time those cave paintings were made, people had been living already in SWA for 30,000 years.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think French painters ... in ... France, 17,000 years ago is a valid comparison. The French people are those who are identified with the country of France, the "the land of the Franks" and it's generally accepted that the land of the Franks did not exist before the Franks themselves, "whose name was first mentioned in 3rd century Roman sources". No-one asserts that the French/Franks existed 17,000 years ago in the land now called France. However the Noongar (whose word for themselves means "man" or "person" , not "people of Western Australia", or "people of Terra Australis", or people of any other relatively recently named place) do assert that they lived 45,000 years ago in the land now known as the south-west of Western Australia. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noongar is as much a modern construction as French, German, etc. If you can find a pre-1940 source for Noongar as an ethnic descriptor for the 13-14 'tribes', by all means introduce it. In any case, the assertion on which this is based is WP:SYNTH:-

(a)According to their traditional beliefs, Noongar people have lived in the South West of Western Australia since time immemorial. (b) Archaeological evidence from Perth and Albany confirms that the region has been occupied for at least 45,000 years, with some caves at Devil's Lair in the hills near Margaret River showing human habitation from 47,000 years ago. 'South West Native Title Settlement,' Government of Western Australia 14 March 2018

I.e., it synthesizes a modern Noongar belief (a) that people of that specific ethnonymic denomination were the original archaic inhabitants with (b)archaeological data that assert 'human habitation' began there 43,000 years ago). This source document is a testimonial before a land claims title, a political document, that gets things wrong by the way. The archaeological data give 50-48,000 years BP as the earliest period for hunter-gatherers there. How this became 47-then 45, then 43,000 years ago is a long story, but is comes from disattention to the precise records of excavation. You can no more cite ultra-orthodox Judeo-Christian beliefs about the creation of the world at 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BCE and the identity of its first inhabitants created on the 28th of that month than you can contemporary Nyungar affirmations that they were there from the outset, 50,000-48,000 years ago. Archaeologists do not make this mistake and neither should we. One can of course cite the 'from time immemorial' as a Nyungar claim. I think this is unique in this area of wiki. The standard is to affirm something like:'Archaeological evidence indicates that Aboriginal people have lived in the Gold Coast region for tens of thousands of years.'(Yugambeh)Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mitch is right; Lascaux/French painters was a crappy example, and not an analogous situation. If I had the time, I'd try to find a better one; however the poor example doesn't mitigate the accuracy of the principles involved. Mathglot (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly,genetic papers cannot be cited for modern historical or anthropological data. They are notoriously erratic in this regard. Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Population, ancient and modern[edit]

This section concerns 3 points.

Earliest habitation. Consensus of editors and sources 48,000 BCE, easily documented (resolved)
Population of SWA at the time of the beginning of white settlement (See below)
Population of descendents. (no problem)

No one here is contesting the antiquity of human habitation in the Southwest. There are ample archaeological studies that pin the earliest SWA date down to roughly 48,000 BCE. What is contested is (a) the assertion that the contemporary ethnonym Nyungar/Noongar, which refers to a modern aggregation of descendents of 13-14 distinct non-circumcising tribes in this area, can ever be appropriate to refer to the ethnicity of people living 50,000 years ago.(b) the phrasing that the number of these ancient Noongar is equivalent to the number of years reaching back to the first period of habitation.

The general estimate for the number of SW Australians in the area ca 1832 when while colonization and genocide began, ranges from 6,-7,500 (Ronald Berndt, 1973) to Alfred Radcliffe-Brown's 12,500 (1930), an overestimate according to Clarence F.Makin (1970)Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salvado said that men were here since the beginning, that the miners turned up later is well documented. cygnis insignis 12:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the recurrent word used by Salvado for the native people in his memoir was 'savages' (selvaggi), varied with ' 'Australian native' and more rarely 'men', whom he thought came to Australia as Andamens perhaps mixed with Malays, after Yahweh scattered mankind in punishment for its building the Tower of Babel. Perhaps 4,000 years ago. Salvado also said that the first native word he heard in Perth was maragna which in his native Galician meant 'deception', though all they wanted was 'food'. He was sleepless for some time, thinking their presence among 'cannibals' (!!) might be taken by the latter as a feeding opportunity. Wi th time, he concurred with Leichhart's objective view that Aborigines were a very 'handsome race', whose physiques were more pleasing to the human eye than those of the whites hellbent on exterminating them. (Rudesindo Salvado, Memorie storiche dell'Australia particolarmente della missione benedettina di Nuova Norcia e degli usi e costumi degli australiani , Vincenzo Priggiobba 1852 pp.161-162,172,267-8,271). Salvado was full of prejudices, like most of us, but had more insight and humanity than most of those who came afterwards. Nishidani (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Fletcher Moore 1850 I have no hesitation in affirming that as far as any tribes have met and conversed with by the colonists namely one hundred miles east of King George's Sound up to two hundred miles north of Fremantle comprising space of above six hundred miles of coast the is radically and essentially the same preface XI, and then Yungar YUNG AR subst People The name by which they designate themselves There may be about 3000 aborigines frequenting the located parts of the colony See the Statistical Report for 1840 and page 150 PEOPLE Yung ar . Moores work is a compliation of word lists the first of which was printed in 1833 just 4 years after the first arrivals.

Yungar(Nyungar) is the name by which they were describing themselves as from at least the first point of arrival
The languages(dialects) they spoke were essentially the same.

Moores work also explains how that the language was spoken perface IX sKGS area the last syllable was cut, to the north the last syllable was lengthened, once you add in the interchangability of P/B, D/T, and G/Q/K. I'll add to that though Salvado word lists are an outrider to all other wordlist complied by Bindon & Chadwick and published by the WA Museum in 2011. Gnan garra 11:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first part from Moore is very useful, Gnangarra. Thanks. It is Moore's view, not necessarily the reality, if ascertainable the fact remains that ((a) Aboriginals were bi-trilingual, i.e. spoke sevceral languages and dialects normally (b)Moore didn't speak any of the languages/dialects (c) linguistics requires grammatical comparisons, not just lexica, and Moore's book ignores grammar (d)In Salvado's area, two dialects/languages could be distinguished, with often pronounced differences in vocabulary see pp.347-359 (I don't know what the pages are in the English translation. I only have the Italian original, but the list is at the end of the book).

When however you write

and then Yungar YUNG AR subst People The name by which they designate themselves

I haven't the slightest idea what source you are referring to (a) Statistical Report for 1840 p.150? For on p.150 of Moore's list, all one finds is the gloss 'people' for yung-ar. No one in the world doubts that nyunga(r) is a widespread word for 'people' in SWA. That is not the question: the question is, what historic source establishes that the collective 13-14 'tribes' of SWA self-identified as members of a Nyungar community? The word for 'people' in virtually every Aboriginal language I am familiar with means 'a male of our hunter-gathering group', and wasn't used of people belonging to other tribes. As Neville Green (cited below) states, intertribal war was incessant at that time, something one would not expect were there a collective identity then, as there is undoubtedly now. Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest something along the following lines:-

The earliest known human occupation of the present Noongar area of Southwestern Australia dates back to ~48,000 B.P. ^[a]

The Aboriginal population of the south west at the outset of white colonization is generally thought to have been around 6,000-7,500.^[2] In the early days of settlement Sir James Stirling posited a density of 1 indigenous person per square mile in 1832 and, diminishing rapidly under the presssure of white settlement, 1 person per 2 square miles in 1837. ^[3] In 1930, Alfred Radcliffe-Brown’s calculations led him to surmise 1 native per 4 square miles, a figure which, extrapolated for the whole area, suggested an indigenous population on the eve of European settlement of around 12,500. ^[4]This high figure was challenged by Clarence Makin in 1970,^[5] and in 1973 Ronald Berndt, accepting Makin’s criticisms of Radcliffe-Brown’s estimation, argued that the original numbers were probably not less than 7.500, if the estimate took into account adjacent tribes in the circumcising inland area. ^[6] Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Berndt, Ronald (July 1973). "Aborigines of southwestern Australia: The past and the present". Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia. 56 (1–2): 50–54. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Green, Neville (2013). "'Survival against all odds': The Indigenous population of metropolitan Perth, 1829–2001". In Hansen, Chrstine; Butler, Kathleen (eds.). Exploring Urban identities and Histories (PDF). AIATSIS. pp. 133–151. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Makin, Clarence F. (1970). A Socio-Economic Anthropological survey of people of Aboriginal descent in the metropolitan region of Perth (Thesis). University of Western Australia. pp. 50–54. {{cite thesis}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred (1930). "Former numbers and distribution of the Australian aborigines" (PDF). Official Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia. Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics . pp. 687–696. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Tilbrook, Lois (1983). The first South Westerners : Aborigines of South Western Australia. Edith Cowan University. ISBN 0-7298-0014-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Turney, Chris S. M.; Bird, Michael I.; Fifield, L. Keith; Roberts, Richard G.; Smith, Mike; Dortch, Charles E.; Grün, Rainer; Lawson, Ewan; Ayliffe, Linda K.; Miller, Gifford H.; Dortch, Joe; Cresswell, Richard G. (2001). "Early Human Occupation at Devil's Lair, Southwestern Australia 50,000 Years Ago". Quaternary Research. 55: 3–13. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

^ Turney et al. 2001, p. 11.
^ Tillbrook 1983, p. 10.
^ Green 2013, p. 134.
^ Radcliffe-Brown 1930, p. 689.
^ Makin 1970.
^ Berndt 1973, p. 50.

Ah the Tindal fallacy ..Radcliffe-Brown’s estimation, argued that the original numbers were probably not less than 7.500, if the estimate took into account adjacent tribes in the circumcising inland area change it to ..Radcliffe-Brown’s estimation, argued that the original numbers were probably not less than 7.500, if the estimate took into account adjacent countries(or nations) ~~in the circumcising inland area~~ Gnan garra 12:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can't draw on personal views or opinions. In any case, I was summarizing the relevant scholarly literature on population estimates. I know that some evidence in one group of a mini-circumcision rite exists: the teeniest tip of the prepuce was snipped. But this in no way affects the general view that the area designated as Nyungar did not carry out in their initiation rituals, (involving dental ablation,) anything like the circumcision practices of tribes to the far north andf east, and hundreds of reports confirm that distinction, not only Tindale.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not part of Nyungar its redundant piece of text, as the area of Noongar is already defined. Gnan garra 13:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also The earliest known human occupation of the present Noongar ~~area~~ country of Southwestern Australia dates back to ~48,000... Gnan garra 12:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources used in the article[edit]

Synopsis of policies and links relevant to discussing reliability of sources here

There has been some discussion previously (most recently just above) about the reliability of certain sources. I wanted to recall some general principles about this, and then address the reliability of one source that has been questioned specifically.

The general principle rgarding reliability and sources, is that "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

In this formulation, we sometimes remember the reliable part, but forget the independent. Independent sources are sometimes called "third-party sources". WP:Identifying and using independent sources has this to say: "Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an axe to grind. It then poses the question, "How to identify indpendent sources?" and answers this way:

Is this source self-published or not? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources.)

Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?

Is this source primary or not? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources.)

Finally, in questioning whether something is a reliable source or not, as it says in the Verifiability policy, section #What counts as a reliable source, "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." A source may be reliable for one thing, such as their own stated opinions, and unreliable for something else, such as matters of established fact, because they are too close to the subject. This is part of the neutrality policy. The way Wikipedia handles this, is by the distinction between saying something largely supported by the majority of reliable sources in Wikipedia's voice (e.g., The Earth revolves around the Sun.), versus presenting something that is a biased statement of opinion "only with in-text attribution." (e.g., The Flat Earth society believes that the sun revolves around the Earth.). That is to say, the Flat Earth society is reliable for its own beliefs, but unreliable for astronomy and orbital mechanics.

In discussing below whether indidividual sources are reliable in a particular context or not, ideally we will achieve a strong consensus. If we do not, however, the next step would be to raise an issue at WP:RSN.

Comments about the reliability of specific sources follow in subsections (one source per section, please!) below. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed this section because an editor had an objection to it. Mathglot (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Aboriginal council – noongar.org.au[edit]

This subsection concerns the reliability of the website noongar.org.au. This website is maintained by the South West Aboriginal Land & Sea Council, an "organisation that represents the Noongar people"^[1]

This section is, in part, a response to Mitch's "what's wrong with it" comment, here. This website can be presumed non-independent for matters concerning the Noongar people, because they are closely affiliated with the subject (see second bullet above).

Because of their non-independence, in addressing whether noongar.org.au is a reliable source or not, it depends on context. For matters of opinion concerning what the Noongar people believe, they can be considered reliable, in my opinion. This would mean that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies, and assertions sourced to this website, require in-text attribution; that is, double-quotes, and the naming of a source in the running text. For example, you could say:

The Southwest Aboriginal Land & Sea Council believes that "The earliest evidence of Noongar occupation of the south-west was around 45,000 BP."^[2]

But since they are not independent, you could not state this in Wikipedia's voice. That is, the following would not be acceptable in the article:

The earliest evidence of Noongar occupation of the south-west was around 45,000 BP.^[2]

Thus, in my opinion, SWAL&SC website is reliable for Noongar belief, and is not reliable for scientific pursuits such as genetics, archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, and so on, since they don't claim to be, and are not, reliable in any of those fields, and because the website is self-published by a non-independent, organisation that can be assumed to have an organisational bias about issues concerning the Noongar people. Mathglot (talk) Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "ABN Lookup". Current details for ABN 42 485 265 673. Australian Business Register. 2013-05-31. Retrieved 2019-07-23.
^ ^a ^b "Noongar History and Culture" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-08-29. Retrieved 22 July 2019. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Peer-reviewed journals and reviews[edit]

Articles independently published in serious, academic, peer-reviewed journals are almost always considered reliable sources. (Some unreliable sources make claims about being peer-reviewed which are faulty or suspect; those can be considered on a case-by-case basis; but check the archives at WP:RSN first.)

Articles in highly prestigious journals are almost always reliable (which is not to say these journals have never screwed up, but it's rare). Example:

Nature (journal) – highly reliable

Such articles would be considered a primary source, thus not ideal in many situations, since Wikipedia prefers secondary sources.

Reviews of a reliable study published by generally reliable sources are generally considered reliable. Exampe:

University of Cambridge Press – highly reliable

A review is a secondary source, and thus is generally a good type of source to use as a reference. Mathglot (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep your notes in user space? cygnis insignis 00:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, so in short "out of date colonial sources" good, "local sources" bad. Noongars dont know their history, their language, their culture only Europeans do. Gnan garra 01:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh I get it Aboriginals dont understand science because they are savages.~~ sorry Europeans are the only one thats understand science Gnan garra 01:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gnangarra, you're exactly right. Don't forget to link policy: see WP:COLONISTSGOOD, and WP:SAVAGESBAD. Thank you for pointing out those issues, and in the spirit of Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful, I thought I would respond in kind.

Okaaaaaay, then.... Now that we've had our little bit of fun, can we get back to improving the article, based on sound policy arguments? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are, of course, no specific policies on WP:Systematic bias, thoughtful editors just consider them a means to countering it. cygnis insignis 03:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Noongar (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Noongar (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zamia Palm and contraception[edit]

There is a citation needed for the post on zamia palm leading to contraception. I have seen this was linked to fasting by a boya or birthing stone, and the fact that wedjalas destroyed the birthing stone at Gooninup. Has anyone got a reference?

Regards, EaChanan (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Error in the Description of Noongar seasons.[edit]

 Their dry period did not last for 11 months.  The quote by Nayton is not relevant here.  I propose it be edited out.  EaChanan (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Noongar are a modern aggregation of over a dozen tribes widely spread over an area that had distinct seasonal variations. So the general description is not going to reflect the historic distinctions: the Nyunga did not experience the same seasonal transitions as the Pindjarup or the Balardong living to the northeast of their territory. The Minang had a totally different nomenclature for the six seasons, for example,but you can't state these thikngs here,m because the article is under 'surveillance' for politically correct 'harmony' among all the descendants gathered under the umbrella of a Noongar identity. Pity. It would be far more fascinating if it tolerated the known historical diversity that the whites wiped out.Nishidani (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty[edit]

"Harry Hobbs and George Williams of the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales have described the Settlement as 'Australia's First Treaty'." ^[1] See: http://www.noongar.org.au/s/The-Noongar-Settlement-First-Australian-Treaty.pdf for the article in which they do so.

References

^ http://www.noongar.org.au/settlement-agreement

Noongar names[edit]

Three Aboriginal men of Perth are identified as Monday, Doomera and Djar ^[1]

References

^ "No title". Swan River Guardian. No. 55. Western Australia. 21 December 1837. p. 267. Retrieved 8 September 2021 – via National Library of Australia.

Rottnest (Wadjemup, meaning...)[edit]

@Betterkeks: With [9][10] we seem to have resolved two of the three items contested in [11][12]. Perhaps we can improve on the third:

Rottnest Island (Nyungar: Wadjemup, possibly meaning "place across the water"

)

I still think that inserting the Noongar name and meaning here disrupts the flow of the text and does not add information that is relevant in this context. The (linked) Rottnest Island article includes the Noongar name (and meaning, and pre-Colonial history), which is the appropriate place to put it. Perhaps it is possible to include the information in the text flow in some way that is contextually relevant to the reader, but I can't think of any. Here's a couple of purely made-up examples to illustrate:

... Aboriginal prisoners were sent to Rottnest Island. They were particularly afraid of this - they knew the island as Wadjemup or "place across the water", i.e. isolated from their home by impassible water.
... Aboriginal prisoners were sent to Rottnest Island. They were particularly afraid of this - they knew the island as Wadjemup or "place across the water where the spirits are" [copied from Rottnest Island, {{cn}}, but perhaps [13]] and thought the spirits would not let them return.

An alternative would simply be to move the existing text into a footnote, which fixes the disruption to text flow. But even in a footnote, that text alone means nothing to the reader. I'd rather see some text that explains to the reader why the name is relevant here, specifically. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birdsall[edit]

Birdsall 1987 p.1. refers to no text in the bibliography. If it cannot be retrieved (no doubt someone in the relentlessly bad editing characteristic of this page has removed it) it goes out. Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was apparently added to the article in this edit, as a "citation" with no "source" definition. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Parton[edit]

@Amborille:, re [14][15][16][17] ... As it states in his article, although Mark Parton has Noongar heritage, he "[does] not identify as Aboriginal".^[1] Consequently we ought not include him in Aboriginal/Noongar categories, lists etc. Please discuss, rather than simply re-adding him, if you disagree. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MitchAmes Oh I understand. I will promptly remove him from the category. Amborille (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Canberra Liberals MLA Mark Parton says he will vote yes to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, putting him at odds with party colleague". 19 April 2023. Retrieved 20 April 2023.

Modern vs Historical[edit]

Do we have / need guidelines for what constitutes Modern vs Historical for the purposes of listing notable Noongar people? I would not have considered Graham Farmer (1935-2019) or Jack Davis (playwright) (1917-2000) to be "historical", but Amborille apparently does: [18][19][20]. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a weird and not well defined way to sort this. There is already a List of Noongar people which has better categories. I think the list in this article should be removed altogether, seeing as List of Noongar people should already list all notable Noongar people and any list here would necessarily have to have some sort of inclusion criteria stricter than GNG, which would be hard to define. Steelkamp (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list in this article should be removed altogether — Agreed. Delete the section Noongar § Notable Noongar people, and instead add List of Noongar people, and Category:Noongar people to Noongar § See also. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tendency by people to consider someone who passed before they were born to label people as historical. IMHO there should be no distinction and the article should only identify a limited number of people who have a legacy impact Like Polly, Jack, Yagan, Kim Scott the other people(played 3 games for Freo) can go in a list where era's interests, and other such collations can be assigned at least until WikiData becomes a more acceptable way to create lists. 09:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Gnan garra 09:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can be much more complex than that, as some groups have very specific rules regarding whether people are mentioned or images shown of deceased persons. It is not universal, and interestingly broadcasters such as the ABC have 'blanket' disclaimers regarding people who have died. As to the context of 'historical', 'notable' or 'legacy impact', the specific discussion regarding the subject are well beyond a wikipedia talk page. It is something that has implications for the whole Australian project as to how to identify people of any ethnic identification, not any one group. JarrahTree 01:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the article should only identify a limited number of people who have a legacy impact Like Polly, Jack, Yagan, Kim Scott — Jack Davis, Yagan, Kim Scott are already mentioned in the appropriate sections (Culture, History of contact). Mitch Ames (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved 1 comment each by Gnangarra and JarrahTree from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia#Definition of "modern" vs "historical" Noongar people to here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally inappropriate - specially to do with actual page watchers and page views JarrahTree 02:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CROSS-POST, WP:DISCUSSFORK. Feel free to update those guidelines to include an instruction to check page-watchers and page-views first. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

some groups have very specific rules regarding whether people are mentioned ... — Fortunately Wikipedia has its own rules, so "some [other] groups" rules probably don't apply here.

It is something that has implications for the whole Australian project — I'm sure you'll post a link when you start that discussion. In the meantime, specific suggestions for this article would be appreciated. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not inflict your problems on other editors - you have no idea about anything to do with aboriginal culture, and your question and your comments simply reflect an inability to take heed of the fact that any one group might have different vocabularies for a range of people within their specific group, whether it is living or dead, famous or notable. JarrahTree 02:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the ever-growing list, and replaced it with a "See also" entry. As Gnangarra suggested (on this page and at the recent meetup), someone might care to write a few paragraphs about a few specific people who are notable for being Noongar. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

[FOOTNOTEEntwisle201425-1] Entwisle 2014, p. 25.

[FOOTNOTEGilblett20135-2] Gilblett 2013, p. 5.

[FOOTNOTEIWK2016-3] IWK 2016.

[FOOTNOTEO’LearyWardKeyBurkhart201736-4] O’Leary et al. 2017, p. 36.

[FOOTNOTEO’LearyWardKeyBurkhart201742–44-5] O’Leary et al. 2017, pp. 42–44.

[FOOTNOTENayton201112-6] Nayton 2011, p. 12.

[FOOTNOTENayton201112-7] Nayton 2011, p. 12.

[FOOTNOTETurneyBirdFifieldet_al200111-8] Turney et al. 2001, p. 11.

[FOOTNOTETillbrook198310-10] Tillbrook 1983, p. 10.

[FOOTNOTEGreen2013134-11] Green 2013, p. 134.

[FOOTNOTERadcliffe-Brown1930689-12] Radcliffe-Brown 1930, p. 689.

[FOOTNOTEMakin1970-13] Makin 1970.

[FOOTNOTEBerndt197350-14] Berndt 1973, p. 50.

[15] "ABN Lookup". Current details for ABN 42 485 265 673. Australian Business Register. 2013-05-31. Retrieved 2019-07-23.

[SWALSC-16] "Noongar History and Culture" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-08-29. Retrieved 22 July 2019. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[17] ttp://www.noongar.org.au/settlement-agreement

[18] "No title". Swan River Guardian. No. 55. Western Australia. 21 December 1837. p. 267. Retrieved 8 September 2021 – via National Library of Australia.

[19] "Canberra Liberals MLA Mark Parton says he will vote yes to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, putting him at odds with party colleague". 19 April 2023. Retrieved 20 April 2023.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[a]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[1]