Wikipedia

User:Pdfpdf/Old Adelaide Families

< User:Pdfpdf

First rough draft - far from complete

edit

Old Adelaide Family

These people are the descendants of the founders of, and the descendants of the supporters of the development of, South Australia in general, and Adelaide and the Adelaide city centre in particular. They generally have their origins with a patriarch in the 19th or early 20th centuries.

Although not exclusively, they comprise the majority of the membership of the Adelaide Club, and historically have educated their sons at Saint Peter's College, Adelaide (Anglican) and Prince Alfred College (Methodist). In these days of co-education and secularity, other schools are popular (e.g. Scotch College, Adelaide, Pembroke, Adelaide & Pulteney Grammar School).

In the late 20th and 21st centuries, the differences between the "Old Adelaide Families" and those who are wealthy have become less clear. Note, however, that the difference is not just "old money" versus "new money".

A list of "Old Adelaide Families" would include:[1]

Notes

edit
  1. ^ This list is far from complete.


2008-November - Discussion from talk page of Category:Old Adelaide Family(ies) - (originally "OAF")

edit

"totally unreferenced - without references this category should be deleted)" - I'm afraid I don't understand. I have looked at many hundreds of categories, and I don't remember ever having seen a category referenced.

Can you show me an example of a category that is referenced so that I have some idea of what a referenced category looks like?

Do you think you could explain to me why any category should be referenced, then why this one should be, and why thousands are not?

Signed, Puzzled from Adelaide. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an example? See WP:CAT, for instance it says, "An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories". Now the problem I have with the "OAF" acronym is that I have lived in Adelaide for decades, and have never seen, heard or read the term "OAF" except on Wikipedia (not by you, it was sitting in the Alexander Downer article for a while). So to demonstrate that "OAF" is a real term - and not just something someone made up one day and put on Wikipedia - you need references demonstrating that "OAF" is moderately widespread and important. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. So your concern is not that the "category" is unreferenced, but that the term "OAF" is unreferenced. Is that correct?
If so, would your concerns be addressed by renaming the category from "OAF" to "Old Adelaide Family"?
In fact, I will rename it anyway - OAF is too cryptic and also is not sufficiently distinguishable from oaf.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
It was a double concern: (1) that the term is unreferenced, and (2) that it's a little derogatory as a category name. I think the rename to Category:Old Adelaide Family adequately addresses the second, but the first is more important: references need to be produced to show the term is sufficiently notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
references need to be produced to show the term is sufficiently notable.
Which term? "Old Adelaide Family"? Will these do?
Google pages from Australia for "old adelaide family" returns about 35 results. E.g. Bickford, Pru Goward's mother, Barbara Cleland, daughter of a distinguished Old Adelaide Family, Michell, Menz, Barr-Smith, (An interesting read), Aherns, Barro? (probably too "new"), Crawford, Simpson, etc., etc.
Of more interest to me, How would you one demonstrate notability? i.e. Where would you put the references? As I said, I have never seen a category referenced, and your information supplied above suggests I never will, so how/where?
Pdfpdf (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The references belong in the article which has the "Category" line, not in the "Category" article itself. So returning to my example of Alexander Downer, he's in a number of categories, and the references for all of them are (or should be) in the article. For instance, he's in Category:Australian Leaders of the Opposition, and the article documents that. He's in Category:Alumni of Newcastle University, and the article documents that. etc.
As for "Old Adelaide Family", I've looked at a couple of your references, and I'm not yet convinced that it exists as a special term or acronym. Perhaps I'm wrong. I think the best way for you to proceed is to create an article called Old Adelaide Families or Old Adelaide Family, and there explain (with references) why the term (and its apparent acronym "OAF") is notable. (e.g. presumably every city in the world has long established families - why does it matter in Adelaide?) This is what you've started already at Category:Old Adelaide Family. I think a general rule is that the "Category" article shouldn't have too much text (I'm sure I read that somewhere in the WP guidelines, but can't find it now!) So why not see what you can put together for an article, and that (including how much you can support with references) might be a guide to whether the Category is worth while. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the opposite of "indent"?

Thanks, that's useful. (It also overlaps with my opinion of the only sensible/practical way to do it.)
Not wanting to be rude, but "Old Adelaide Family" is a well established term that is independent of your opinion of it, and yes, I believe you're wrong, but then, that's only my opinion.
"OAF", on the other hand, isn't worth any further discussion - the fact that it is only 3 keystrokes is out-weighed by its obscurity and ambiguously derogatory associations (which is no doubt part of the justification for its existence). So let's just drop "OAF" from the conversation.
(On a tangent, thanks for bringing <u> </u> to my attention; I've been looking for a way to do that, and it never occurred to me to try basic html!!)
Yes, an article is probably a good idea. I'm reticent, however, because to do it justice would require a lot of work. (I've just started on Adelaide Steamship Company - that will keep me busy for the next month. I would guess that a decent OAF article would require over 40 hours work.)
presumably every city in the world has long established families - why does it matter in Adelaide? - Wow!! That's a $64,000 question! Interestingly-to-me, I think I can answer it!! However, it would take me at least half-an-hour of talking to do so. Briefly: Yes, "presumably every city in the world" does have long established families, but I think, in general, "So what?". why does it matter in Adelaide? - I think that's the question that "hits the nail on the head". The answer is complex, and is tied up in the fact that Adelaide was a "free" (non-convict) and privately financed settlement, the economic "travails" of the colony, and the fact that the "founding fathers" were able to become so ridiculously wealthy that a culture of philanthropy developed. Then, through various droughts, depressions and periods of horrible disease and death, these families continued to put back into the community. e.g. Moonta's copper kept SA going when otherwise everyone in Adelaide would have packed up and either returned "home" to England, or moved East. e.g. The Hayward family starting up the John Martin's Christmas Pageant and the Magic Cave.
This is what you've started already at Category:Old Adelaide Family ...
Yes, I think you are right, and yes, I think it does say something like that somewhere.
So why not see what you can put together for an article ...
Flipant answer: Because it's too much like hard work, and I'm too lazy!!!
I have absolutely no doubt that it is worthwhile, and easily justifiable as such. Further, you have convinced me that the way forward is to write an article.
However, my wife wants our grey water diverted onto the garden, and that has higher priority!
Thanks for the discussion-to-date. I've found it interesting, useful and thought provoking.
I expect I will probably bother you again when I want someone to bounce ideas off of.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

2011-November - Comments

edit

This list is both too short and too long; it seems to read as a list of popular brands, rather than "OAFs".

"OAFs" are typically descendants of early settlers, typically protestant, often non-conforming. Most of the families listed are later 19Century or more recent. Examples omitted include:

  • Bagot (lawyers/pastorailsts)
  • Balfour - not old
  • Bowman
  • Cudmore (pastoral/legal)
  • Davenport
  • Duncan
  • Keynes/Jones
  • McBride
  • Mortlock
  • Stow (clergy/legal - prolific)
  • Swan
  • Tennants (although strictly mid-North)
  • Waite/Morgan
  • Wigg (early industrialists)

The following are either not OAF or not even Adelaide:

  • Murdochs - Melbourne. Sir Keith's father was a Presbyterian minister of no particular note.
  • Way - two generations only; James (father) was a Primitive Methodist; Sir Samuel, Baronet, son, had no legitimate issue.
  • Wauchope - not old
  • Bonython - arguable because not particularly old, but bulks large because they owned the Advertiser until the 1930s. Sir John Langdon founded the family, he died as recently as 1939. His son Sir John Lavington was Lord Mayor and a businessman; his grandsons include C Warren (conservationist) and H Kym (bon vivant and arts promoter).
  • Hayward - two generations of lawyers isn't a family.
  • Hill - Lance Hill was post WWII. Not "old money". Not related to the political hills (Murray and Robert)
  • Napier - two generations of lawyers, the first educated and trained in Sydney
  • Crawfords - mostly post-war, commercial money (and, against the OAF tradition, strongly pro Labor)
  • Penfolds - business and family based in Adelaide, although the Penfold-Hylands were generous donors to the National Gallery of South Australia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrmonter71 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

2017-January

edit

Just was looking at User:Pdfpdf/Old Adelaide Families. Where did you get to with this? It's an interesting point you make about how the European settlment of SA was privately financed. As a resident with exclusively very-early SA immigrant ancestry I've only just understood how it happened and each investor got to pick a city and country block based on their investment (just as soon as overworked Col. Light got around to surveying the place). I suppose this is a somewhat unusual beginning for a city. Is there any publication you know of that discusses or lists old Adelaide families with relation to their very early (financial or cultural) contribution? I mean, is there a list drawn together that's not your original or some other Wikipedia editor's original research. Or have you published outside Wikipedia for that matter? Donama (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Where did you get to with this?

a) @Donama: When you say "this", what are you referring to? (i.e. the label "Old Adelaide Families", or the content, or both, or something else?) Pdfpdf (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
b) Where did you get to? - I didn't really get anywhere. I got a lot of "flak", so I backed off. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I got the content from a variety of sources, including stories from my father and others, books read while creating articles, assorted biographies from assorted sources (e.g. adb, J150W), assorted webpages and magazine articles, annotations of photographs from the State Library of South Australia, assorted newspaper articles via Trove, assorted wikipedia articles about Adelaide and South Australia (and their references - e.g. South Australian Company), and no doubt other sources too. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It's an interesting point you make about how the European settlement of SA was privately financed. As a resident with exclusively very-early SA immigrant ancestry I've only just understood how it happened and each investor got to pick a city and country block based on their investment (just as soon as overworked Col. Light got around to surveying the place).

I can't remember what my source was. Geoffrey Duttons's "Founder of a City" was a useful source of information regarding Light's role. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose this is a somewhat unusual beginning for a city.

I would have thought it was very unusual. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there any publication you know of that discusses or lists old Adelaide families with relation to their very early (financial or cultural) contribution? I mean, is there a list drawn together that's not your original or some other Wikipedia editor's original research. Or have you published outside Wikipedia for that matter?

I don't know of any single publication. I'll look through my "stuff" and see what sort of useful list I can compile for you. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Pdfpdf. Don't worry about compiling a list of content. I'm most interested in a published list - i.e. a WP:SECONDARY source. Cheers Donama (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
You may be able to get info from The Pioneers Association of South Australia Inc website (my family arrived post-WWII, so I'm not a member). Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. http://www.pioneerssa.org.au/our_pioneer_ancestors.html "Membership is open to any person with an ancestor who arrived in South Australia by and including 28 December 1846. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pdfpdf/Old_Adelaide_Families&oldid=823095417"