Talk:Sydney/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Page protection requested

I am growing weary of the constant edit-warring over the lead. There is no consensus for inaccurate and poorly-sourced content in such a prominent position. It appears to me that, rather than gain consensus, two editors are trying to promote their own cultural or political agenda, ignore wikiprocedure, and insist on their way no matter what. The lede is a summary of the article body, and placing content there that does not reflect the body, is poorly-sourced, and not supported by consensus, is disruptive. Discussion has been ongoing here for weeks and yet we're still getting this - doubtless well-intentioned but - thin and shallow stuff added back in.

I have requested page protection here. If this sort of disruption continues it becomes a behaviour issue rather than dispute resolution and the next stop is the drama forum where capricious penalties are awarded by the howling mob. --Pete (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm still watching this page since a noticeboard request related to the lead image. I noticed there was a lot of back-and-forth but haven't investigated due to working on something off-wiki. I still haven't looked but it's likely an RfC will be required unless things settle down quickly. No one should start an RfC until replying here with a draft question because useful RfCs have to be framed correctly. At any rate, I applied full protection. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This dispute has been going on since February and I think a RfC is needed. I suggest: The statement in the lead that Gadi is the Dharug word for Sydney and Eora is the Dharug word for Greater Sydney should be removed and replaced by an appropriate section in the main article giving the traditional names for the territories of the 28 clans of the Sydney region where known and supported by high quality sources in accordance with WP:SOURCE and MOS:LEADALT. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to what single-issue editor User:Simulaun asserts, none of the anti-side have made a convincing case that the Australian Museum is not a reliable source on Aboriginal names. IMO. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 07:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, AA. I believe that this is an excellent idea, as per your research above. We may be sure of a few things through high class sources and this article deserves the best.

RW, a blog page from a museum aimed at schoolchildren is not really the best we can come up with it. Lift your sights higher. Do some research of your own, something beyond the first page of Google, maybe??? --Pete (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Pete that's a little condescending towards Randwicked. It would be nice if everyone played their part and did some research of their own. I haven't seen much research from the follow & revert crew, and it's not like there isn't local knowledge being shared that the follow & revert crew could build upon instead of tossing the information out point blank with no consideration or effort to improve it. GadigalGuy (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a lot condescending, actually, which I can't help notice has been Pete's tone throughout. Maybe he's used to bullying new-blood editors in that tone, but it isn't gunna work on me. I've been here longer than he has. Pete, you may think the several reliable sources attesting to the Gadi name already could be better? Fine. Find more. You have no grounds to delete info that is already sourced and then demand others find sources that meet your imaginary standards. Wikipedia grows and improves incrementally. It doesn't have to be perfect from the get go. My word, there are a lot of places you could start if you wanted to clean up badly sourced articles. Why do you start here? - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 14:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, STOP accusing editors you disagree with of pushing "political agendas", and learn to recognise your own biases. You've made it clear you don't have respect for Aboriginal languages, jocularly comparing them to SCA nerd speak. You first waded into this issue by dismissing my input on the importance of recovering indigenous naming as the work of a "woke editor" (big red flags in that phrasing). If I am woke, what are you? Anti-woke? How is the encyclopedia supposed to overcome its enormous, overwhelming systemic bias issue cf: the lack of indigenous perspectives if the editors who could potentially have the biggest input in addressing the bias are hounded away by constant, groundless accusations of wikipolicy violation? - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 14:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

My, such aggression! And so wrong-headed. We need more Indigenous history and details of the original names for places, not less, not whitewash it away, sweep it under the carpet.

My opposition to poorly-sourced content being placed in the lead in a position of prominence is that it is WP:UNDUE for the WP:LEDE. The historic Indigenous name is of marginal use or interest; there's no great body of literature prompting anyone to look up Gadi to see what happened there once upon a time. Not like there is for Danzig or Byzantium or Stalingrad. It is debatable whether there is any real equivalence between an Indigenous name for a region and the later city that grew up. They are two different concepts, because the original inhabitants simply did not have any permanent settlements. They moved on when the ground became foul. Why, if you did not have crops to tend, would you stay in a place that made you sick? That sort of background detail belongs in an appropriate section of the article where it may be explained at length and not as a false equivalence between an ancient tribal territory and a modern city that is the second thing that readers see.

My thinking is easily seen in the draft essay here to which I have repeatedly invited comment and coöperation. I'm looking to add in references to Wikipolicy and there is ongoing discussion at WP:PLACE where I am hoping for a useful guide.

And yes, I certainly see these efforts by WP:SPA to WP:RGW as something that Wikipedia frowns upon. You know that too. --Pete (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Pete you said: "the original inhabitants simply did not have any permanent settlements."

My response: I have a family tree book my elders put together which says you're wrong. But because you apparently love research sources (and because I'm not gonna share my family tree here for obvious privacy reasons), try this instead: In many cases, your claim is not true. GadigalGuy (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You are kidding, surely? That is wishful thinking. At best it is a heavily-criticised view in academia. Cook and others found a thriving civilisation in New Zealand, a landscape that was agricultural and settled. Large permanent settlements, fortifications and defence systems. In Australia, the very same people found nothing remotely similar. That's why Cook claimed possession of the East Coast of Australia as a land not controlled by any government, but hadn't contemplated taking New Zealand for the Crown because it was so obviously settled. Ironically, he did so in the Torres Strait, where the locals were farmers and passed family ownership of plots of land along from generation to generation, something acknowledged by the High Court far too many years later.

Nevertheless, if you have any evidence, any sources, showing that there was a pre-existing village, township, settlement, town, city at Sydney Cove or surrounds, then feel free to share it. It would be a big help in the current discussion. --Pete (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Pete you said: "You are kidding, surely?"

My response: No.

Pete you said: "That is wishful thinking."

My response: No, my family history that has been passed down is not wishful thinking.

Pete you said: "if you have any evidence, any sources, showing that there was a pre-existing village, township, settlement, town, city at Sydney Cove or surrounds"

My response: Like I said, I'm not gonna share my family tree book. I provided a research article from the University of Tasmania which has plenty of linked sources that would take a lot longer to read through than it did for you to try to disregard my comment. Perhaps, respectfully, you could read those.

Pete you said: "then feel free to share it."

My response: What I will share is that I have a family tree book my elders put together which makes it clear the 'no permanent settlements' claim is wrong.

For further information to think about:

- It takes under two hours to walk from one side of Gadi to the other, I've done it plenty of times, it's really not a stretch that they lived here permanently - as they did.

- There's also the whole rule of not going into different families area without permission and following proper customs, and the areas aren't that big.

- The permanent meeting, ceremonial and spiritual places that have now been destroyed and built over existed (permanently) for a reason.

Pete you said: "It would be a big help in the current discussion."

My response: It would help the discussion if people were a little more open minded rather than immediately discounting anything that they disagree with. But I might be hoping for too much there - wishful thinking I guess you could say. GadigalGuy (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It has been widely assumed (and recently disputed) that "The Aborigines were nomads or wanderers. They wandered from place to place as they searched for food and water. But each tribe had its own special territory and members of the tribe did not move outside this area" (from https://www.utas.edu.au/about/news-and-stories/articles/2020/1043-the-enduring-myth-of-the-hunter-gatherer). Just to gain some clarity regarding this, are you saying/claiming that the Gadigal had one or more specific sites/locations of permanent habitation ('fixed settlements') in or prior to 1788 CE? Simulaun (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

"are you saying/claiming that the Gadigal had one or more specific sites/locations of permanent habitation"

Based on my family history - yep. But as I mentioned above, Gadi is a tiny area that takes under 2 hours to walk completely across, so the existence of specific locations isn't much of a surprise from a logical perspective - especially when you consider that more than a thousand people lived around this area when the First Fleet arrived, and we just don't invite ourselves into another mobs area because there are rules and procedures around that, so that's a lot of people moving around such a tiny area if the nomadic claim has any truth for us. The closest I could see it being true would be like the equivalent of suggesting most of the office workers in the city are nomadic because they travel an hour or two to and from work these days... Some specific permanent places can also be seen with British recorded examples like Bennelong and Memel Island which was in the news recently, the initiation place in the Royal Botanic Gardens and the various meeting places dotted around the area. GadigalGuy (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I've made this point before to both of you. Any claim that Aboriginal people continent-wide did not have permanent settlements is outdated and clearly false, as I have shown before. This is not fringe science, you can go to the sites and see the evidence for yourself. Off the top of my head there are examples of stone houses and foundations in Tasmania and Budj Bim. In Sydney, there are thousands of sites that show repeated occupation for very long periods of time, including middens, grinding stone grooves, and engraving sites. Many of Sydney's roads were built ontop of well-trodden Aboriginal trails. These did not appear by themselves, and they're not something you can just make quickly. This is just with my cursory knowledge of this area, I defer to GadigalGuy who clearly knows a lot more about their country. Poketama (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I lived in Sydney years ago. There were rock grooves a couple of blocks away at Tania Park. There is no question that Aboriginal people lived in what is now Sydney. Every European visitor and settler from Cook onwards remarked upon them. Middens abound.

The point being made is that no permanent settlements were described. There were certainly people living permanently in the Sydney region - I mean, where else would they go; pop off to Bali for a weekend? - but they weren't living in anything that the colonisers viewed as villages or towns. Having names for hills and bays and beaches is one thing but if there were no towns then how could there be names for them?

Permanent settlements are a comparatively recent development in human culture. The reason is that they are unhealthy. Wastes mount up and foul the area, parasites cluster about their hosts, pathogens of all kinds find easy targets. There's only a few good reasons to put up with this such as to farm the land or permanently occupy a strategic location such as a river crossing or a sheltered harbour or a mine.

Agriculture and civilisation - meaning a city-based society - only arrived in historic times. A few thousand years, no more. We can find not just houses and villages but whole towns and cities with streets and large community buildings and city walls almost everywhere in the world where humans have lived. Great Zimbabwe and of course the Nile civilisation in Africa, many great empires and capitals in America, great temple complexes and fortifications all over Asia. But not in Australia. There is no history, no archaeology showing this.

I have a keen interest in such things. I've been to Skara Brae, Walnut Canyon, Pasargadae and many other ancient habitations. If there was anything like that here, I would have visited. City ruins would be a huge tourist drawcard. But there ain't. Maybe you hold a different opinion and good for you. But we have to go by reliable sources here and not personal opinions. I'm not sure that you fully grasp this. --Pete (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Pete you said: “but they weren't living in anything that the colonisers viewed as villages or towns.”

My response: Key phrase to highlight there ‘that the colonisers viewed’. They had to justify their actions somehow.

Pete you said: “Agriculture and civilisation - meaning a city-based society… But not in Australia.”

My response: Well… this educational resource is interesting.

Pete you said: “There is no history, no archaeology showing this.”

My response: You would probably find this book interesting too. GadigalGuy (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

All very thin. The Europeans who arrived in, named, and built the town and city of Sydney did not report any corresponding pre-colonial villages, towns, or cities. We have no sources, no "Aboriginal Sydney", no direct equivalent.

Of course those who lived there before Cook and Phillip had names for their lands and their people. I'll accept that they may be the same word. But there were several peoples occupying the land now covered by the sprawling city of Sydney. We can't say that the one place had many different names; that's looking into the future. It's like saying that Sydney is Parramatta and Maroubra and Narrabeen and Taronga and dozens of others. Well, yeees, but the entity of Sydney the city - and this is an article about that entity - had no Aboriginal name.

The guidelines at WP:PLACE are constructed around that concept of a city. Gdansk used to be Danzig. Istanbul used to be Constantinople used to be Byzantium. You see the idea? The one city, changing over time, and the name changing with it.

I'm really not sure how many words you can stack on top of each other to try to make a Jenga tower and call it the pre-colonial city of Aboriginal Sydney. Entertaining, maybe, but it's a fanciful notion and perhaps best suited to literature of imagination rather than an encyclopaedia containing reliable facts. --Pete (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This strikes me as a relevant and valid point. The city 'Sydney' arose from the original 1788 British settlement, not from one of the purported parallel Gadi settlements in the general area. There is, therefore, no valid reason to start calling it 'Gadi'. Simulaun (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

If you truly believe that there should be more First Nations content on Wikipedia, add to it. That would do a lot to show you can act in good faith. Poketama (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be more productive if we kept this discussion to the topic of the RfC proposal. Thanks. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I've notice similar disagreements at other Australian city pages, like Melbourne, Adelaide & the capital Canberra (for examples). Perhaps an RFC concerning this matter of the indigenous names, in the lead & infoboxes, could be held on a wider scale. Otherwise, it'll simply be a repeated debate, from page to page. The (now closed) RFC that was held at the Australian notice board, may have created more problems, then solved them. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a blanket rule will work because every city/region has its peculiarities, so it has to be resolved on a case by case basis, painful as that sometimes is. I think WP policy on this issue is quite clear and workable, and the most important thing is that editors discuss the issue with good sources and goodwill. Sydney is particularly complex, however, because in 1788 there were several languages/dialects in the region and about 30 clans with their own territory names. And today there are several groups representing Sydney's Aboriginal people and they don't always agree on territorial boundaries and names. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

One page at a time. Seems the only way. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW, who's @157042tw:? He's reverting on multiple Australia city pages & not participating in any discussions. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I see one proposal for RfC wording above ("The statement in the lead ..."). That can be reworked to be a briefer question, but something more generic would be useful ("Should alternative names for Sydney be given in the lead?"). Also, the current article has "Sydney/Gadi, Eora" as the title in the infobox—is that settled or should it be included in the RfC? What does "the main article" in the proposal refer to? Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to have 2 questions:

1) Should alternative names for Sydney be given in the lead and infobox?

2) Should the Section "First inhabitants of the region" include the traditional names for the territories of the 28 clans of the Sydney region where known and supported by high quality sources in accordance with WP:SOURCE and MOS:LEADALT.? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

On more mature reflection I prefer wording referring specifically to Gadi and Eora as alternative names for Sydney in the lead and info box. Even if someone agrees, in principle, to alternative names in the lead, there is still the question of whether it has been demonstrated that Gadi and Eora are widely used alternative names for Sydney. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi AA. I would propose at a minimum including them in the infobox, which includes a field for them already. I am agnostic on inclusion in bold or not bold, in brackets or not, etc etc in the lede paragraph, but if they are well established names, e.g. by being either official dual names or otherwise robustly attested, they should definitely be there. I would support inclusion of the various nations of greater Sydney in the article as per your list, breaking them into a sub-article for space reasons if needed. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 06:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this sounds like reasonable compromise for both sides, I can agree with Randwick's suggestion if that's a pathway to consensus. GadigalGuy (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if (visual) infobox examples might be shown of any proposed compromises. Whatever's decided on this page, could be used as an example for the other Australian city pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

So we are proposing removing Gadi and Eora from the lead, retaining them in the info box, and expanding the information on indigenous clans in the body of the article as per my draft? I would accept that as a compromise as well. One problem though, which I would like Gadigal Guy and Randwicked to comment on if they wish, is that a couple of prominent Aboriginal groups don't like the Eora name and state that all Aboriginal people originally from Sydney are Darug. One of the reasons I wanted to remove Eora/Gadi from the lead is that I didn't want it to look as though the article was taking a position on the issue. Could we put Darug, Eora, Gadi in the info box and leave the explanation to the body of the article? And I also know some Dharawal who don't call themselves Eora, they insist they are Dharawal. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Straw poll

Let's divide up the possibilities:

History section in article body.

• Support - As per AA above. Sourced information of inhabitants at time of settlement. Expanding on what we have already. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - of course, abiding by all the usual Wikipedia sourcing and verification policies. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - of course. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 05:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Similar to other cities in Australia, Canada, etc. Simulaun

Lede

• Support - One or two sentence summary of main body material. We've got a mention already. I think it is part of the city's fundamental story to mention that the region was inhabited before the First Fleet, and we can mention the names of the tribes. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - brief summary of what's in the main body, as per WP:LEAD. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - in lede should exist key information for a modern city. This informations is good for History section. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 05:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - that's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

First sentence

• Oppose - As per WP:PLACE. Alternative names that are not the common name need to be found in 10% of literature or have a record of being a previous common name, such as Constantinople or Danzig. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The city of Sydney did not exist prior to 1788, therefore it could not possibly have had an indigenous name, let alone a common name. The names of any particular locations within the current area of the city are not relevant. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Sydney - both, City of Sydney and whole Sydney (Greater Capital City Statistical Area) did not exist prior to 1788, therefore it could not possibly have had an indigenous name, let alone a common name. The names of any particular geographical locations within the current area are not relevant. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 03:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Indeed, as it would be too crowded. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - By definition, key information about Sydney is about Sydney, not about who or what had previously been roaming the area Simulaun

Infobox

• Oppose - Just because a template has a field does not mean that it needs to be filled in. The Infobox template has dozens of fields, most of them not required here. If there is no definite Indigenous name for a city - and how could there be? - then we should not be lending an air of authenticity to unreliable material. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Pete is right in principle, but I would be prepared to compromise to reach consensus, as long as my concerns above about Darug and Dharawal are addressed. Why don't they make the cut? --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral - So long as the names are well sourced and actually do refer to the place known as Sydney, not just a small part of it, then an entry in the Infobox seems OK. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no definite Indigenous name for a city. besides - as above - in Pete' comment. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 03:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think matching the infobox name with the article name, is best. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with 'Pete' Simulaun

Discussion

Consensens and discussion is the way forward. This doesn't mean that we all need to be of one mind. For a contentious question it is important that all views be considered; legal proceedings usually involve differences of opinion with points made by various parties amd if someone raises a good point it needs to be explored. We're looking for the best possible way to handle historical and cultural matters with an eye to providing good relevant information for our readers. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Contemporary Aboriginal groups might refer to Darug, Eora, and Dharawal as their country, but I can't see how they are alternative names for Sydney. They are words for an entirely different cultural concept which at best correlates to their part of the land on which Sydney is built. I also have a problem with Gadi being separately listed to Eora. They can't both be words for the entire Sydney metropolis, which is the subject of this article. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The main issue I have is that Sydney, for better or for worse, is a product of colonisation in 1788 and so it is a nonsense to say that there is an indigenous name for it. Any claim that there is in fact such a name needs to be impeccably sourced. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see this as a real way to resolve this issue. We've already done an RFC, and just debating the same things again that were debated in the RFC is not effective. We don't have contact with Traditional Owner groups to give guidance. As such, if someone can make contact or find sources that cite Traditional Owner groups that would be ideal. At present, the same arguments are just being made again and again using logic from a European perspective - without actual knowledge of the facts one way or another. The only exception is GadigalGuy who has explained how the names apply within his culture, and has provided sources.

I think the way forward is to debate sources and understand culture. Poketama (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the first step in having Indigenous names added to any Australian place pages (where the don't already exist)? Would be to open an RM on the place page. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

In a sense, you may have identified the root cause of the disagreement. Logic is an inherent characteristic of the universe. To suggest there is European logic versus other types of logic is akin to saying 2+2=4 as well as a range of other numbers depending on ones cultural perspective. Simulaun (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't suggest that logic isn't useful, but that you can make invalid arguments because you are missing cultural knowledge for the premises to be correct. Take this prompt:

• In Victoria, Aboriginal peoples are referred to by the name of their Traditional Language.

• The Traditional Language of Central Melbourne is Woiwurrung.

• Therefore, the Traditional Owners of the Central Melbourne area are the Woiwurrung people.

This is false, because the Traditional Owners of the Central Melbourne area are the Wurundjeri people who speak the Woiwurrung language. The first premise is incorrect, although it is very easy to make the mistake that it would be true because in most cases it is true. Poketama (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Poketama. I agree that your point regarding Woiwurrung versus Wurundjeri in Melbourne is valid/relevant. Simulaun (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Skyring's straw poll questions, should be used on the talkpages for these types of disputes, concerning place names. If anything, it would clarify what direction editors' are heading in, on each place page. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Most kind. It seems to be working well here and we can probably ask for protection to be lifted soon. Not a full-blown RfC but we get quick views seen at a glance instead of the same points being made over and over and buried in discussion. It also allows important points to become more visible - there may be some groupthink going on and someone comes in with a fresh angle that hadn't been considered but turns out to be critical. --Pete (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we have enough input to show a reasonable consensus on what should be included and where. My main concern is that not all those who were edit-warring have participated. Could I ask User:GadigalGuy and User:Poketama for their input, please? I'd hate for protection to be lifted and the same edit-warring to resume. --Pete (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Let me address the points raised here. The primary policy I refer to as always is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).

1. There is no Indigenous names for cities. - This is not true, but is on a case-by-case basis. You must understand culture and language evolves, and if a new name is created or an old name is applied to a city it is still valid.

2. A name for a region cannot used for an article on a city. - This isn't the case for this article, as GadigalGuy has explained Gadi refers to Sydney the city. This argument has been discussed a lot and I don't agree. The article for Sydney heavily covers the Sydney region, and is the only article to do so. How can the information then be included in Wikipedia without erasing it? Is a city distinct from the land which it occupies, and can you show that that is true both from the European and First Nations perspective?

3. All names should go in the history section. - This is inappropriate, these are names used today. If anything, a new 'Names' section would be made.

4. Pete's argument that the above policy refers to specific European cities. - There is no direct evidence for this in the article.

This is something we would both like to see resolved. I'll contribute if you can respond to points. Can you address these points? It would help a lot with making progress for everyone. Poketama (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• User:Poketama, "You must understand" that there are no indigenous names for cities. Of course, maybe Aboriginal culture and language evolves however, that doesn't change anything. The modern name used by modern Aboriginal people is not a indigenous name as a historical name. This is just modern non-official name for city used by one of the many of modern groups of people. Nothing more. Indigenous name is name which was used for the city prior to its current name (for example Sydney, Brisbane etc). Such indigenous names do not exist. There are indigenous names for geographic terms e.g. peninsulas, bays, lowlands, but none for cities. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Pete I have two final points to make:

Point One: Getting to the root of the disagreement - I find this to be a really bizarre argument from Subtropical-man, it seems to suggest that Sydney is not a geographic location. Yet when someone says "I'm going to Sydney", they are still going to the geographical location of Sydney. If I were to name any city or town in the world, immediately I'd be identifying it as a geographical location, and if I didn't know where it was, I would ask where is x - as anyone would - and the response would be where it is in geographic terms, the area, no different to Gadi as far as I can see. There seems to be some suggestion that a city is not a geographical location, and therefore can not have historical names for the exact same geographical location. Weird. I think this might be what Poketama is referring to above with the question of "Is a city distinct from the land which it occupies, and..." so on - and could be the root cause of the continuous disagreement.

Point Two: The topic this article covers and NPOV - With regard to the point 2 that Poketama replied to above, this article appears to be the only article for Sydney, so obviously it is covering the topic in 'city terms' seeing as there is an apparent difference, however the article also covers Sydney in geographical terms, and even covers Greater Sydney (as per when you search Greater Sydney and it comes here) - this article is not just on the topic of the colonial established city of Sydney and I don't think everyone here realises that, or if they do, they're certainly not aligning their position with WP:NPOV. Unless we are going to separate the article out so that the suggested difference of Sydney (City), Sydney (Geographic Location), and the currently included Greater Sydney (Geographic Location) are all in their own articles, this is currently not a single topic article and therefore should actually cover all of the topics that it is for. GadigalGuy (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Where is there a requirement a name in the lead must be official or pre-colonial? Poketama (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Gaining consensus, is best route

This page will be unprotected in about 3 days & I've just requested protection for Melbourne. Honestly, ya'll are gonna have to start putting your edit & revert buttons away, concerning page content & concentrate on gaining a consensus for making any additions or deletions, on the Australian place pages' talkpage, concerning this topic. Otherwise, continued 'edit-warring' will be viewed by administrators as a behavioural problem, rather then content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have changed your mind on this. I thought we agreed that, painful as it is, the only place to work out these issues is on each relevant page? Blanket "consensus" is a bad idea because each city has its own history and local Indigenous groups. I certainly don't have the knowledge or interest to take part in the Melbourne dispute, I just want to try to help improve this particular article. My interpretation of the straw poll and other discussions here is that:

1) 6 editors think Aboriginal names should be removed from the first sentence of the lead, and 3 (Gadigal Guy, Randwicked and Poketama) would prefer that they remain.

2) 5 editors think Aboriginal names should be removed from the info box, and 3 (Gadigal Guy, Randwicked and Poketama) would prefer they remain.

3) 4 editors (Gadigal Guy, Randwicked, GoodDay and me) would consider a compromise whereby the Aboriginal names are removed from the lead but retained in some form in the infobox, but three oppose this compromise.

So we seem to have reached a clear majority in removing the names from the lead, and probably a weak consensus on removing them from the infobox. The question is, who declares a consensus? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Toponymy and First Inhabitants of Region

Hello all

I think there was broad agreement that these sections should be expanded in accordance with the draft that I left open for comment. It might be too long, but I think the detail is necessary as a basis for discussion. I suggest that we discuss proposed changes here and stick to sources and policy. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

History

Hello all

I have made substantial changes to this section. I have tried to focus the history section on Sydney rather than the colony because they are not the same thing. I have changed the subheadings to make them more meaningful in relation to the history of the city. I have replaced links to unsatisfactory sources (such as personal websites and blogs) with more reliable sources, especially recent academic publications. I have removed some unsourced and dubious information and replaced it with relevant sourced information. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• I moved table with all clans to History of Sydney [1]. I was shocked to see this in the main city article. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  I suggest we see what other editors have to say before we remove sourced information. "Shock" isn't a reason to remove relevant sourced information under policy. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, I was shocked to see that you put a huge clan's table in the main article about the city. Dot. I moved this table with all clans to History of Sydney because the main article about the modern city is the place for the most important information about the city. The place for detailed including table with all historical clans is History of Sydney, not main article about city.

Full list and table of clans:

• is too big for the main article about the city
• suitable for other detailed historical information in History of Sydney
• table is duplicates the content because in the article already there are data about clans, for example: "The modern greater Sydney area covers the traditional lands of 28 known Aboriginal clans.[31]" and "Clans known to be of the Sydney region but whose territory wasn't reliably recorded are the Domaragal, Doogagal, Gannalgal, Gomerigal, Gooneeowlgal, Goorunggurregal, Gorualgal, Murrooredial, Noronggerragal, Oryangsoora and Wandeandegal.[42]"

Besides, I have the right to undo your new changes without the consent of other users - per Wikipedia:CYCLE (new change by one user, revert by another user = must to be discuss and consensus) and Wikipedia:Stable version. So. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Subtropical. And the page is already far too long, so I would remove the table for that reason alone. HappyWaldo (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC) -

I think it would be relevant to include more about Sydney's first inhabitants. The WP article presently only states that they were "more than a thousand settlers, including 736 convicts". Perhaps some information from 'The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia's Founding'? Simulaun (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m shocked that you’re shocked Subtropical-man… The proposal was discussed pretty heavily in the above sections including the draft which had the table, and you yourself supported it on at least two occasions that I can see. You stated that you “fully support his proposal” and voted to support.



It’s already gained a pretty clear consensus on both sides, including from you yourself.

Very interesting reaction… GadigalGuy (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

GadigalGuy, no, you wrong. I support simple "summary of the clans" [2], not whole large table. Now, "Summary of the clans" there are in article as sentences - above I give two sentensces as example, I quote again: "The modern greater Sydney area covers the traditional lands of 28 known Aboriginal clans.[31]" and "Clans known to be of the Sydney region but whose territory wasn't reliably recorded are the Domaragal, Doogagal, Gannalgal, Gomerigal, Gooneeowlgal, Goorunggurregal, Gorualgal, Murrooredial, Noronggerragal, Oryangsoora and Wandeandegal.[42]" ... but User:Aemilius Adolphin additionally push own new large table, and that's the problem. The information in these sentences is sufficient, while the table is too large and too detailed for a main article about the city. I do not support any new big tables in the article. Before that, I didn't know anything about the idea inserting the entire table with all clans into the main article about the city. I also think that threading up a discussion about my "shocked" is littering the discussion, so please stop. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You “fully support”ed the proposal of “summary of the clans, their known territories, and their names for these territories.” - The table appears to do exactly that, and again, it was discussed heavily and consensus has already been gained for that expansion of the history section. The table is not new. We literally had a back and forth discussion specifically about the table almost a month ago.

Not to mention the sentences you’ve just quoted do not include the information from the table, so the sentence of ‘places not reliably recorded’ would then be out of context and missing a chunk of valid information.

The article has about 6 times as much information on the colonial history as it does the Indigenous history, and the Indigenous history covers a time period of over 40,000 years while the colonial history is 200 and something years. WP:NPOV is a factor here - especially when the article covers the topics of Sydney (modern city), Sydney (geographic place) and Greater Sydney (geographic place). Reminder: This is not a single topic article. GadigalGuy (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Please note:

1) "This article is about the Australian metropolis" (Sydney)

2) 40,000 years - nothing of relevance to the metropolis (Sydney) happened

250 years - everything of relevance to the metropolis (Sydney) happened Simulaun (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I’d suggest that the “1)” caption is wrong then. But if we are going to base it on that, then the geographical place now known as Sydney and also Greater Sydney will need to be seperated into their own articles as no other article currently caters for those topics as far as I can tell. GadigalGuy (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think the table is a good compromise. I thought it would be gigantic like one of the weather tables from how you guys were complaining. The idea that its not appropriate to have a simple list of clans and regions within Sydney is really impossible to work with. Poketama (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

GadigalGuy, there was a misunderstanding. In order not to prolong unnecessary discussion thread, I confirm once again: I do not support the use of a large table in the main article about the city. I support the succinct information that there were many clans and many names for many parts of the city. I think other users have a similar opinion. Although Poketama is opponent to me and several other users in this topic, even Poketama admitted that he did not know exactly what such a table could look like or what size it will be. Nobody really knew what the size of the table would be during the poll. You had to link to the prepared table in the poll, so that we would know what we are voting for. Other users are not a crystal ball. So please stop attack other users here, "because you voted". Nobody knew what the table would look like, and the table turned out to be too big for the main article about the city. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Subtropicalman. I can see that the link to the draft table might have got lost in the toing and froing of the discussion, but Pete did explicitly refer to it in the straw poll. I can also see that you have a legitimate concern that the Table might be too big and for an article of this kind. I'm not an expert in Table design, but is it possible to make the Table collapsable? We could have the Table heading in the text and readers can click on the Table if they wish to see the detail. Indeed, this might be a way to present information in different levels of detail throughout wikipedia articles. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin: Good idea. Looks like tables can be collapsible, given that the issue is about the size of the table, this would definitely be acceptable - Wiki guide on that here

Subtropical-man, quoting you 3 times and linking to your relevant quotes while responding to the points you’ve made is not attacking you. GadigalGuy (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man Your attempts to revert changes to the lead are inappropriate. Its clear from the context what traditional owners means, or for anyone who lives in Australia. This is not controversial or unclear. If you'd like to trim the fat of the lead I'm sure you can do it some other way. Poketama (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I have made the Table of Aboriginal clans of Sydney collapsable, which should address the concerns raised by Subtropicalman. I have also added a sentence to the lead on the traditional owners of Sydney land, as per the consensus reached above in the PetePoll.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

protection, again?

Well, I won't be requesting protection (again) for this city page or any other Australian city page. Just wish, the RFC at the Australian noticeboard had settled this entire topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I created a new talk thread (below) about a new edit-war and pushing POV involving the user:Poketama. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Demographics

Hello all,

This section needs a complete revision. I have removed some information which was unsourced or based on outdated data from the 2016 and 2011 censuses. There are also some basic errors in the presentation of Census data. For example, the 2021 Census shows the overseas born population of greater Sydney is 40.5%, not 43% as was stated. Someone just looked at the Quickstats and subtracted the Australian born population from the total population to arrive at the overseas-born population. This is not valid because 5% of Census respondents didn't state their place of birth. There is no warrant for counting them as overseas born. The comparisons of Sydney and other world cities in relation to overseas born populations were also highly dubious as they were based on different time periods and definitions. The source was another wikipedia article which isn't a reliable source under policy. I have tried to stick to facts sourced from the 2021 Census and other reliable sources. If anyone would like to help out in correcting and updating this section I would be grateful. Happy to dicuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Traditional owners and Aboriginal clans/peoples in lead

The phrase "traditional owners", while hyperlinked, is particular to Australian parlance and as such I believe is not optimal for the lead. Furthermore, the phrase is not within the source, and the Darug, Dharawal and Eora are identified as language groups not peoples. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

1) The article is written in Australian English, so it's fine to use "Australian parlance" in the lead if terms are explained (for example by a hyperlink to wiktionary).

2) "The phrase is not used in the source." The source uses the phrase "traditional custodian". So, you would have no objections if we used the phrase "traditional custodians" in the lead instead?

3) " the Darug, Dharawal and Eora are identified as language groups not peoples." I quote from the source: "It is generally acknowledged that the Eora are the coastal people of the Sydney area, with the Dharug (Darug) people occupying the inland area from Parramatta to the Blue Mountains. The Dharawal people’s lands are mostly confined to the area south of Botany Bay, extending as far south as the Nowra area, across to the Georges River in Sydney’s west." In any case, nations/tribes/peoples are often defined by language. That's how most of Europe got divided into nations. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Aemilius Adolphin, it does not change the fact that the content breaks the Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also, per Talk:Sydney#Next_new_disputed_changes_by_user_Poketama_in_intro, breaks Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Congratulations. You broke three basic Wikipedia rules: Wikipedia:Core content policies. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed your template. There is no original research involved. It is a summary of the source and the information in the article. It also has consensus support. You can go to arbitration if you wish. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting the definition Wikipedia provides for 'Original Research' is: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."

It would be ridiculous to suggest that no reliable, published sources exist for "The traditional owners of the land on which modern Sydney stands are the clans of the Darug, Dharawal and Eora peoples.". It's probably one of the most published bits of info about us that exists. GadigalGuy (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair point in regards to three, I am aware of the connection between language and tribal/national identity and as such shouldn't have raised it. With regards to point one, I accept your point, and with regards to point two, it is of little significance though – should other editors agree – general terminology (i.e. "Sydney was [pre-]historically inhabited by the ...") would be my preference. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the previous section, 'Traditional Owners' is not just Australian terminology, I only did a quick google search but found it being used in Canada & USA and in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 'Traditional Custodians' seems to be more commonly used internationally however, so I'd probably place it higher in the priority list for the wording if it were to change. I'm not a fan of the "Sydney was historically inhabited" - because it still is... but the wording makes it sound like we don't exist anymore... GadigalGuy (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@GadigalGuy Perhaps "has historically been inhabited by..." would be more amenable? Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Otherwise, the clan/tribal names could be included within the first sentence. However, seeing the reasoning for the status quo, I am little concerned about what presently stands. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Traditional custodian is definitely becoming more common in academic circles. Eg: See here: re Dharug Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a Canadian University example of 'traditional custodians' to back up your 'more common in academic circles' point Aemilius. GadigalGuy (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Next new disputed changes by user Poketama in intro

User Poketama has made new changes [3] - to intro, he enter additional informations about few clans and used the term of "traditional owners". I reverted this new changes with justification in the description of changes [4]. The concise information (about Indigenous Australians) was perfectly sufficient in intro of article, there is no need to enter next your extras to lede of main article. There were many aboriginal clans, more information is in the history section. During deeper changes made by the user Aemilius Adolphin, content about the 3 tribes has been restored [5]. I restored stable version and per Wikipedia:CYCLE - and asked for a discussion [6]. User Poketama restored his new version without any description of the changes [7].

I have given sufficient reasons:

1. The concise information (about Indigenous Australians) was perfectly sufficient in intro of article, there is no need to enter next your extras to lede of main article. There were many aboriginal clans, more information is in the history section. There is no rational reason to introduce the sentence about the 3 selected clans in the intro of the article. There is already information in the intro about Aborigines in this area. I remind you that this is the intro of the article - here should be the most important information about the modern city of Sydney - information about the three tribes is not such information.
2. The new change favors only 3 of the 28 clans (break WP:NPOV).
3. Wikipedia is read by many people from different parts of the world (which Poketama forgot [8]), not everyone knows what Australian "traditional owners" means. In lede there is no place for controversial and unclear issues. Wikipedia is also not owned by Australians.
4. Lack of balance and POV. If there is to be more information about aboriginal clans (which has no meaning for a modern city), we must to add information that the Aborigines constitute only 1.7%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! of the population of Sydney and the majority of the Australian population are of British origin. New changes is favoring the Aboriginal group of the population despite being a small fraction of the population. After new changes by user Poketama, whole paragraph in intro is about Aborigines, having almost no impact on today's city. There must be a balance. At the moment, in the intro there is too much content about the Aborigines but in the intro there is not a word about the British people. This is a scandal. British people make up the majority group in both Sydney and Australia.

After the changes made by the user Poketama, the article should include the POV template. We should go back to the previous (stable) version. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Recommend going back to the stable version & from there, work it out on 'this' talkpage. A consensus should be obtained for such changes. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we are arguing about. I added the following sentence to the lead: "The traditional owners of the land on which modern Sydney stands are the Darug, Dharawal and Eora people." This is a summary of the revised article content which was reached by consensus on this talk page. Adding the one line summary in the lead was also reached by consensus on this talk page. Vis: Pete's straw poll question in which he said "Lead: One or two sentence summary of main body material. We've got a mention already. I think it is part of the city's fundamental story to mention that the region was inhabited before the First Fleet, and we can mention the names of the tribes." This was supported by everyone except Subtropicalman.

The Darug, Dharawal and Eora are not clans, they are tribes, nations or peoples. And it is nonsense to suggest that English speakers won't know what the phrase "traditional owners" means. They are both common words, and the links and article itself explain what they mean in the context of Sydney. The lead also clearly states that Sydney is the site of the British penal colony founded in 1788. These are all facts written in a perfectly neutral POV. The version of the lead as it stands at the time of my writing this should remain. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

After a quick look, I have no problems at all with the article as it currently stands. The table is excellent and now that it is collapsible it does not intrude unduly. Cook encountered Aboriginal people in the Sydney region, we describe this in the body, a summary is relevant in the lede. --Pete (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Aemilius Adolphin, lede (intro) is part of the article that describes the most important issues regarding the modern city. Writing about the three tribes (Darug, Dharawal and Eora) is the most useless piece of information in the intro of article. It has nothing to do with the modern city of Sydney. Additionally, the information about "traditional owners" is confusing and unclear. Maybe for Australians it may be clear, for the rest of the world - not. A person from Australia cannot verify it, I am from outside Ausutralia so as a third person I see a problem. If someone has a problem with verification, we can create a survey for people from outside of Australia - ask if they understand the meaning of the term "traditional owners" in 100% and have no doubts about it... and we can see that the user's ' Aemilius Adolphindreams quickly fall short of the truth. Aemilius Adolphin wrote: "This is a summary of the revised article content which was reached by consensus on this talk page" - no, there is no consensus to this sentence. Summary rhewre are in lede, I quote: "Aboriginal Australians have inhabited the Greater Sydney region for at least 30,000 years, and Aboriginal engravings and cultural sites are common throughout Greater Sydney" - and that is enough. We don't need an entire paragraph about Aborigines, especially that there is practically nothing in lede about the British people who make up the majority of the population of Sydney and Australia. So please don't wash your eyes of other users. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've had a closer look and my opinion stands. The lede material is modest, accurate, and a summary of the main content material. We really have two objectives here:

  • To present useful, accurate, and pertinent information to our readers, and
  • To work together as editors to that aim.

  I think we're doing just fine.

  "Traditional owners" is common usage. The High Court addressed this matter quite some time back in Mabo. Sovereignty perishes on conquest but ownership persists. If there were several tribes with defined territories I'm not sure that they owned the land in a real estate sense but they certainly held rights of hunting, collecting fruits, fishing and so on and they must have regarded the arrival of the British as an unmitigated disaster repeated endlessly across the land, relieved only by the occasional provision of an excellent mission education provided at no charge by penguins. Oh joy. --Pete (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

You wrote: "We really have two objectives here: To present useful (...) information to our readers" - exactly, "useful". In intro of article, information about three aboriginal groups that have no influence on today's Sydney (you wrote it yourself in another discussion) - these are the most useless information in lede. Such information is just a curiosity to be placed in the history section. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that the story of a place is one reason people come to Wikipedia. The role of Aboriginal people in the story is where the story of humans in this place begins. They may not have had a city in their culture but they were there before the British arrived and in the records of Australia those people in the area of Port Jackson were the first to be given much attention by Europeans. Previously it had just been people passing through, the odd shipwreck aside, and this was the first time European and Aboriginal people had shared the land for any time. Naturally there were reports, journals, paintings and so on.

It happened elsewhere, of course, but in Sydney the Australian story of two peoples sharing the land begins.

And when I say "sharing" that masks a sorry tale of dispossession, injustice, and genocide. This is part of the story of the city of Sydney and it deserves to be told in the body and mentioned in the lede and not whitewashed away. --Pete (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with Poketama and Aemilius Adolphin's additions here, this is vital information concisely expressed, completely appropriate for the lede as important historical and contemporary context. If "non-Australians" are likely to be so confused by the term traditional owners, then link to that term on Wiktionary, or where it is explained in a section of the article Native title in Australia. --Canley (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Your argument works against you. I qoute your comment: "If "non-Australians" are likely to be so confused by the term traditional owners, then link to that term on Wiktionary, or where it is explained in a section of the article Native title in Australia#Traditional owner" - exactly, you push to the intro of the article the content that needs to be checked in the wiktionary or other articles. In articles, especially in the intro, we should avoid content that is incomprehensible to a large group of people. It may be clear to Australians, but not to the rest of the world. This is not Australian Wikipedia, we should use content that is understandable to all people from different countries of the world.

Besides, there is also a POV problem. The information about Aborigines takes up an entire paragraph even though they constitute only 1.3% of Sydney's population. British people make up the majority of Sydney's population, and there's not a word about it in the intro. It doesn't matter if you think that "this is vital information" - in this situation, the entire paragraph on Aborigines upsets the balance with other groups of the population of Sydney. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

1. British descended Australians are not the majority in Sydney. They are also discussed in the lede. 1&2. You don't understand the topic.
2. I really doubt this is an issue, feel free to get outside input.Poketama (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: Please stop referring to us as ‘Aborigines’, you have been told a bunch of times that terminology is offensive. There is no excuse for it. Do better. As for the intro, I agree with everyone else here, ‘traditional owners’ is extremely common wording, and not just in Australia, a quick google search showed results in Canada and USA when referring to their Indigenous Peoples, and the same wording is even used by the UN (see Article 26 of UNDRIP). You mention that “British people make up the majority of Sydney’s population”, worth noting that as of the 2021 census, a huge 2.9% of people living in Sydney were from England and only 23.8% are of British ancestry. I don’t think I’d call that a majority. GadigalGuy (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

GadigalGuy, you are confusing the basic concepts. 23.8% are of British ancestry? Not, this is only English, not British. All British people from the British Isles (including Scots, Welsh, Irish) both British-born and with British roots - this is more than half of Sydney's and Australia's population. It is by far the largest population group in Sydney and Australia, and nothing to deny it. If you stick to the details - okay, people of European descent make up the majority of Sydney's population. Why are you adding a new sentence about Aboriginal tribes and not about Europeans? It was the Europeans who created the city of Sydney, all culture and architecture, all in the city of Sydney. Nothing about Europeans in intro, but you added a next sentence about useless information about some tribes that had no influence on the city of Sydney. Where's the point? Where's the NPOV here?

GadigalGuy, even if you try to prove that the term of ‘traditional owners’ is used somewhere eg in a UN document etc, it does not mean that ordinary typical readers know and use it. Moreover, it doesn't really matter here either. The intro is a place for the most important information about the city of Sydney, additional information about the 3 tribes is extremely useless information in lede.

Besides, I started the discussion on the wrong side. Wikipedia's rules are clear. If you add information to an article and someone revoked it, the author of the information (of the new change) must prove that the information is encyclopedic and valid for the place where it is inserted. To put it bluntly: it is the Poketama who inserted the information into the lede who must prove that this data is needed in the intro of the article. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I have changed the wording of the sentence on the traditional owners of the land to make the distinction between clans and Aboriginal nations/tribes/peoples clearer. I have added a citation to meet the concern expressed by Nick Thorne. I have linked to the wiktionary definition of traditional owner to make the use of this term clearer. However, I don't see possibly unfamiliar terms as a real problem. People go to encyclopaedias to learn about topics they are unfamiliar with so they are bound to come across things new to them. I think we can trust readers to follow links and read the article to find out what unfamiliar terms mean. If we only include things which are already common knowledge there'd be no point having an encyclopaedia. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree. Wikipedia is pretty close to the old hypertext model where everything is linked. Hell, that's half the fun of the thing. I see something I don't know or understand, I just click on the link and there I am. Magic. --Pete (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The Macquarie Dictionary Online has excellent definitions of the Eora, Dharug and Dharawal peoples and of the phrase "traditional owner". The Macquarie is the most authoritative dictionary of Australian English and should be a sufficient citation for the sentence about the traditional owners in the lead. However, you need a subscription to access, and I'm not sure about the protocols for citing words from a dictionary. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Issue that you have to link to a wiktionary so that everyone can find out what is means this statement means is just one problem. There are still two more important problems:

1. why did you insert in the article about the modern city of Sydney the useless information about some three clans who had no influence on the creation and development of the city?
2. why are you breaking the NPOV rule and break balance with not posting additional information about the people (mainly colonists from Europe) who built this city? You createthe entire second paragraph about Aboriginal people that do not have much importance for the modern city of Sydney, without adding information about the Sydney builders. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: It is incorrect to say that Darug, Dharawal and Eora Peoples have had "no influence" in the development of the city. I'm sure you've heard of a place called Bondi and it's famous beach, most tourists have - who do you think called it Bondi? (Hint: my ancestors) GadigalGuy (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

GadigalGuy, I'm sorry, but by writing the above comment you have once again proved that further discussion with you does not make sense. If you think naming a piece of the coast as Bondi is co-creating the city of Sydney, please don't waste my time. Sorry. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

There is content on British colonists in the lead literally one sentence after the Aboriginal content. Poketama (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Besides, "traditional owners" is just an empty term and it's like Honorary citizenship. There is no "honorary citizenships of cities" in the intro of city' articles in the Wikipedia. This is just empty information suitable for the trivia section. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

This is just completely incorrect. Why do you insist on involving yourself in this space with input like this? You clearly have little understanding of the topic. This is not ad-hominem, there's value in editors outside a field being involved. However, I don't go onto articles about European cities and history where I have no background knowledge and make edits and arguments. You ask GadigalGuy to not waste your time? Everyone here has spent time discussing your points and explaining basic things to you that you should have researched yourself before starting arguments. You didn't even read the sentence about Europeans that is directly after the one you are complaining about. We are now at a point where a compromise has been made with a great amount of effort and you are still picking away. If you want to contribute to the discussion any further, educate yourself on the topic and actually read the section you're disputing. Otherwise I don't see how you are not just being a disruptive editor. Poketama (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Most populous city?

I hear Melbourne has overtaken Sydney. Should we change that? VenomousConcept (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you hear! The ABS uses a couple of different definitions of city populations. On one of these definitions Melbourne has overtaken Sydney simply because they've changed the boundaries. On the definition we consistently use in all articles on Australian cities, Sydney remains ahead.[9]https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/regional-population/latest-release The issue should be discussed, but it's not a good idea to change definitions and articles according to the media news cycle. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I recommend that the OP has a look at the Talk pages for Australia and Melbourne. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Would people object if I changed the lead to: "Sydney (/ˈsɪdni/ (listen) SID-nee) is the capital city of the state of New South Wales, and the most populous city in Australia (although the second most populous in urban area)." Most people only read the lead and this might discourage them from changing it. I would drop the reference to Oceania because it isn't very notable and is poorly sourced anyway. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

SUA isn't a measurement that's commonly used, either in a colloquial sense or by geographers, demographers or the ABS. Sydney is still the largest metropolitan area (for now), which is the common measurement used everywhere else. News outlets ran the story without adequate context which is going to confuse a lot of people.

The Oceania reference is neither here nor there, but IMO the page should revert to how it was. Likewise for Melbourne's page too. Emerald3333 (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of editors will waste a lot of time reverting back whenever someone replaces Sydney with Melbourne as the most populous city. This will not die down in the short term. Acknowledging in the lead that the Melbourne is more populous on one measure is correct and likely to reduce wasted effort. There is a discussion on this issue on the Australia Talk page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna be bold and remove the statement about geographic contiguity. It's too confusing and the article List of cities in Australia by population clearly says that Greater Sydney is larger than Greater Melbourne (and by a decent amount). Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Good decision. GCSSA has always been the standard, and the media latching onto a story that is at best misleading does not change that. Emerald3333 (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I will simply repeat that the media HAS latched on to that story, and most of Australia, and some other parts of the world, have now heard at least some version of it. We cannot write about relative sizes of the cities pretending the story doesn't exist. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The stories run have typically ranged from misleading to some containing outright falsehoods. They don't need to be considered in the slightest. Emerald3333 (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo. We must also avoid a situation where the Sydney article says that Sydney is the most populous city and the Melbourne article says that Melbourne is the most populous. There is a discussion of this issue on the Australia Talk page and I think the consensus that is reached there should be applied to all the relevant articles; ie Australia, Sydney, Melbourne, NSW and Victoria. Note we are not changing our preferred definition of population, merely acknowledging that another definition is preferred by many. Please see my proposal on the Australia talk page for this point. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The Melbourne page was indeed flooded by upset Melburninans when the story broke. That doesn't make them correct, nor create a need for us to change the definition for the purpose of sparing their feelings.

Acknowledging another definition could certainly find a place in the 'Demographics' section of certain pages. I'm not sure there's any reason to go beyond that. Emerald3333 (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You really need to keep your contempt for people from Melbourne out of this. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I am a born and raised Melburnian, but thanks.

I'm sorry that your feelings are upset. Emerald3333 (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Population

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has released a new census, according to which the population of Sydney is 5,297,089 as of June 30, 2022. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/regional-population/2021-22 AntonBasenko (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Order of images in infobox

Isn't it more stringent and common to have the skyline (currently last image) as the first image in the infobox of city articles? Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Sydney Harbour photo#2

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sydney_Harbour_Aboriginal_flag2.jpg

I have edited an re uploaded a new photo taken at McMahons point(closer vantage point) which features the Sydney Harbour with new Aboriginal flag.

I have increased the exposure selectively of the POI's including the Flags to be more informative to the viewer - infact more visible than current photo despite being a sunrise photo. My upload has no watermarks and is free to edit and use.

My intention of this submission is to inform the global Wikipedia audience about Australia's recent emergence of Aboriginal(first nations) people recognition of culture and civil rights issues. Gibrate1 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the image in the article since it has both the Sydney Opera House and the Sydney Harbour are more visible in the image... which is important, and should keep that image in the infobox. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I can clearly see the Harbour and Opera House in my photo - acutually same exposure level as article photo. Yes, the Opera House is smaller in this image, though it still clearly visble. More importantly is the new Aboriginal flag which is as visible if not more than article image.

I'm not trying to "one up" the article photo - this photo was not my best photo taken on the photoshoot. I chose this photo as the flags were facing the camera cearly and it was my closed viewpoint - beneficial to viewer.

Perhaphs a cropped version would suit better?

I beleive it's more important to have a photo which has the Harbour and Opera House in current state. Gibrate1 (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This image: [10], is a featured picture. I think it should be kept in the infobox, It's good. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you propose my image be added elsewhere in the article? It is still relevant as it shows the new Aboriginal flag. Gibrate1 (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from other users. Gibrate1 (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Then see Wikipedia:Consensus. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I will includie my photo was well a short paragrah under 'History>State capital (1901–present)' sections if I received no objection or alertnate suggestions by 9 AM, 01/02/2024. Gibrate1 (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)