Talk:Clyde River (New South Wales)

Indigenous name - needs a reliable source

Looking at the source given for the Indigenous name of the river, I find we are using a high school website where the four school houses are named after four local rivers: Bredbo, Clyde, Molonglo, and Snowy.

This isn't what I'd call a high class source for the name. Where did they get their information from? They don't say. Do we have a source with a solid link to the original residents from, you know, the 19th or better yet, 18th Century?

If we want to link to the original name of the river and those who first lived upon its banks, we should have a meaningful connection, not some incidental high school website that barely mentiones the name in passing. This is pretty bloody shameful. --Pete (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is a recent news article from a little over a year ago with the background story of the naming of the river, and it includes reference to a map held by the Records State Archives NSW listing the name as Bhundoo in 1834. The name is in widespread use in the local non-Indigenous community, and the citation is from the National Parks and Wildlife Services, but I will get a copy of the State Archive map to cite also when I have a spare chance to look for it. GadigalGuy (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not seeing any reason to give a previous name such prominence. The references you cite give are tertiary in nature and give the name as one of past history, rather than one in widespread use. Perhaps you could gain consensus for giving this information prominence in the lede rather than in a history section? The sources given are pretty shallow. How about we find the sources that these used and have something solid to show? --Pete (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't add that information to the lede or even to the infobox. That information has been in the lede since 2008, added and updated by multiple users over the last nearly 15 years. Long before my time on Wikipedia. That to me looks like consensus. GadigalGuy (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any previous discussion raised over the crap sourcing. We need reliable sourcing. In fact, for reasons I've already outlined elsewhere, we need excellent sourcing. The topic, crucial to national identity and justice, demands it. Do you not feel the need to get this right or are you happy with plastic when it should be handcrafted native wood? --Pete (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:PLACE

I see WP:PLACE used as justification for this edit. That policy states

Wikipedia articles must have a single title, by the design of the system; this page is intended to help editors agree on which name of a place is to appear as the title. Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information.

The 10% number for Bundoo could be a bit hard to swallow. I think, appropriately sourced, it is appropriate in the history section but WP:UNDUE for the lede and infobox. Is there any other policy I'm missing? --Pete (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The only reason I am responding to this is because it is in reference to my edit, otherwise I really don't want to interact with you as I've now made clear - To answer your question: Yes, "Two or three alternative names can be mentioned in the first line of the article", the next line that you conveniently ignored under the Alternative Names section. The NSW Government source provided meets the 10% requirement, it also refers to 1828 historical records, I don't know what more you want because clearly nothing I add will be acceptable to you and you'll just continue to delete everything I do. Also why are you removing the infobox native name? GadigalGuy (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

They all have to satisfy the 10% requirement, surely?

…used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place…

I put it to you that the available English literature on the NSW Clyde River would run to a great number of published documents. Looking at Google news results I see 17 800 hits for Clyde River NSW and 6 results for Bhundoo NSW. Call me pedantic but I really would like to see your maths on your claim that one document alone makes 10%. --Pete (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You do know that WP:PLACE has an exception after the mention of the 10% threshold for a name "that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place", right? --Canley (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I do now. Thanks. There's some discussion here on this. Archives show meaty discussions in 2011 and 2019.

The overall thrust of the "used to inhabit a place" exception is for places in and around Europe where towns and cities have often switched between nations and languages. There is significant discussion for places like Vilnius and Gdansk. I've looked carefully but I'm not seeing any discussion about Indigenous names being covered by this exemption. Does this mean that it's so obvious that they are, or that this wasn't the intention at all? Going by the paucity of discussion on search terms within the archives on "Aboriginal", "Indigenous", and even "Maori", my feeling that this group of nit-pickers weren't contemplating the mass inclusion of names without a significant sourcing in English literature. Not because the British used such a word themselves but because documents would reference that name and somebody wanting to know where (say) Takht-e Jamshid was located would have a way of getting to it and of course the place was widely known by its Persian name for centuries before Alexander the Great renamed the place with extreme prejudice.

Do we have a significant body of literature devoted to Indigenous Australian place names? Not really. It's all one direction. Readers, for whatever reason, want to know what the Indigenous name of (say) the Lachlan River was, and not find out what the Galari later became - because there is no body of literature pre-existing European settlement.

My feeling, as you know, is that this information is simply not of enough practical use to take up space in the lede. Who wants this information? Someone who already knows the post-colonial name. Do we have a significant user base looking up our encyclopaedia for this information and they need it as a priority? Probably not.

So we are not talking encyclopaedic usage here but political and cultural desires and I feel that the sort of people who feel strongly about this already have their minds made up and reasoned argument is of no effect. Consensus doesn't work for these people because they will always have a mental reservation that they are in the right and everybody else is in the wrong goddammit.

I think the way forward on this is to initiate some discussion on the point, find some consensus, and abide by that because the matter of Indigenous names in an Australian context doesn't seem to be addressed. Maybe it is but a search on Australia and Australian in the archives throws up lots of talk about whether state and country names need to be appended and frankly that sort of discussion holds no interest for me. It seems to be America versus the world on that particular topic.

One point made in discussion is that it says such names are permitted and this does not mean mandatory. I remain of the opinion that case by case discussion is at the moment the only way of finding consensus because the usage differs widely. Some names are obviously in wide usage, others not so much. Hence my comments here about Uluru and B(h)undoo. --Pete (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you please provide valid and sound sources to backup your claim that people are not using Wikipedia to look up alternate names of places and your assumption that "we are not talking encyclopaedic usage here but political and cultural desires"? Because I find that extremely hard to believe, particularly given that it is one of the main reasons I first became interested in reading geographical articles on Wikipedia, prior to deciding to give contributing a go. GadigalGuy (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I've done a quick pre-check and statistically people use Wikipedia the same way I typically do, interestingly more than any other use-case, 35% just want a specific fact or quick answer, those people (myself included) don't want to read through summaries and in depth information, which is what would be happening if certain things, like the two or so words that make up alternate placenames in parenthesis, were buried halfway down the article. GadigalGuy (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why anyone should imagine I think people do not or would not use Wikipedia to look up Indigenous place names. I think at least a few - yourself included - do this and I think Wikipedia can be an excellent resource for this. This is something we can do well but so far we haven't. I would love to see indepth information on Indigenous names for Australian places - or anywhere, for that matter - along with lists, discussions on Indigenous languages and some solid and reliable research. We are already a go-to resource ranking high on search pages and have immense authority, something we didn't have when I began editing here some years ago.

I don't think, however, that this information is of such importance or utility that it needs to be the second thing that people read or hear when searching for information on an Australian place. I couldn't find anything at all on Wikipedia users looking up our articles to find Indigenous place names. If you have any information along those lines I'd like to see it. My own thought is it is because our sourcing for this topic is mostly pretty crap and offering no advantage over simply looking up a dedicated resource. Try it yourself. Google "What is the Indigenous name for xxx?" where xxx is any non-Indigenous place name. I haven't found an example where Wikipedia comes up first, not even in the summary paragraph where Google puts their best possible thumbnail answer. Usually we're about halfway down the screen.

As for burying this information "halfway down the article" wouldn't that apply on average to any random fact in an article? You know, we stick information in articles and we do that so that people can find it. We provide headings and cross-references and wikilinks to our information and it seems to work quite well. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the content. Call me old-fashioned but I think that if we put information about the history of a place in a "History" section and have that as a major item in the table of contents that system is going to link up readers with the history information very effectively.

I don't think you are listening to me. I say things and you somehow assume the exact opposite. Why don't you look into your own heart and tell yourself why you think the Indigenous names of Australian places are so important that they need to be the second piece of information in the article, in bold? I think it is because you are pursuing some cultural objective to give Indigenous names more prominence than the general community gives them. We use reliable sources and we use NPOV to gauge importance and notability. Like a dictionary, we don't tell people what words they should use and how to use them. We reflect usage, not prescribe it. --Pete (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"Try it yourself. Google "What is the Indigenous name for xxx?" where xxx is any non-Indigenous place name. I haven't found an example where Wikipedia comes up first" - Nowra, Kiama, Illawarra, Bega, Goulburn, Bungendore, Gunning, Gundaroo, Jindabyne, Bombala, Bowral, Wagga Wagga, Cowra, Taree, Inverell, Broken Hill - all have Wikipedia as their first result, should I continue?

Why do I think they should be in the lede? Well, for starters I don't care if they're bold or not, the whole reason I think they should be there in parenthesis is because it just seems like a simple and logical place. The first thing you read is the name and if you're looking for the alternate name, the logical thing would be to include an alternate name in brackets next to it because it is specifically and directly related to that name. If I wanted to know the history of the name then I'd scroll down to the history section and learn about that in more depth, but when I'm specifically wanting to know the alternate name, I don't want to scroll down to the history section, I want to see the names only, and the logical and most efficient thing for me is that I see the name and in brackets what the alternate name is because the names, the specific information I want to find, would be side by side, in the name section where the name is, which just happens to be the lede, because obviously the name won't be halfway down the page - sorry I can't help that part. Nothing more sinister, sorry to disappoint.

You assume that I'm on some pursuit of a cultural agenda to give more prominence to the names, and that's really overstating the importance of one of many online open source reference books and absolutely overstating my motivations. If I were on that agenda (I'm not) I'd skip Wikipedia and go straight to the government agencies that handle official dual naming where there is going to be some actual substantial societal change with the prominence of the names rather than a relatively invisible reference article that might get 6 views a day. And god knows it would be far less stressful/annoying/frustrating and far more productive with my time than continuously coming up against gatekeepers and sheriffs who feel they are destined to 'monitor' and drive away anyone that dare set foot on their turf in the same manner like its the comments section of news websites that the know-it-all's swarm to and turn into the most unpleasant experiences for the average readers, driving anyone away due to their rock-solid vocal opinions that no one else can possibly have an acceptable alternative opinion on. This is literally only Wikipedia, it's not the general community, it's not the decider of all things social justice, and at the core it's a simple quick reference book for 35% of users.

My highly controversial cultural agenda here is so that the 35% of people like me don't have to waste time scrolling around for 5 minutes to find one word that should be next to the thing it is the alternate word for, because it frustrated the heck out of me not being able to easily find what I was looking for because it wasn't in a logical place on a bunch of articles before I decided to do something about it and sign up to contribute to those articles. Really, it's that unexciting. GadigalGuy (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. Can you explain why you consider Nowra, Kiama, Illawarra, Bega, Gundaroo etc. to be non-Indigenous place names? I would have thought Wagga Wagga was a prime example of an Indigenous place name, but you don't think so. Why is that? I suspect your methodology is flawed and I invite competent readers to try this for themselves. For the three non-Indigenous names you list (out of the sixteen total!) the Wikipedia summary doesn't actually answer the question asked and is of no immediate use. See "What is the Indigenous place name of Inverell", Goulburn, and Broken Hill.

Your desire for having the Indigenous name bolded in the lead sentence seems to be, if we may credit your claim, a matter of personal convenience. Do you really use Wikipedia primarily to find out the Indigenous name of a place? Could you explain more about "the 35% of people like me", please? I'm unsure as to where this is coming from; you know, of course, that 35% of percentages are just made up on the spot.

I don't follow your reasoning. If you want to know a piece of information you want it highly visible in the first sentence in the lede rather than have the fag of scrolling down to the table of contents and reading through the relevant section. Looking at your "non-Indigenous named" city of Wagga Wagga, we might assume that you'd also like the relative humidity (30%, found in the "Climate" section), the shape of the city flag (square, as found with an illustration in the helpfully-named "Flag" section), and the name of the local newspaper (The Daily Advertiser, found in the "Media" section) to be placed in the lede, along with every other fact point in the entire bloody article. Could be a crowded lede, eh?

But you think the Indigenous name (Wagga Wagga, found in the title of the article) is what people actually go looking for and you consider the rest of our article to be just background noise that stops readers from finding the one and only information of any importance: the indigenous name which is right there as the title!

Seriously, and I had a bit of fun at what I trust is a simple misunderstanding as to what a non-Indigenous place name is (a place name that is not Indigenous, just to be clear), I don't accept your implicit claim that you and 35% of our readers use Wikipedia to find out the Indigenous name of a place. As I keep pointing out, this is of no practical use. I would imagine that some of our half a billion users each month go looking for useful information in our online encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok lets break this down so it is easier to follow:

You said: "I don't think you are listening to me."

My response: Pot meet kettle.

You said: "Can you explain why you consider Nowra, Kiama, Illawarra, Bega, Gundaroo etc. to be non-Indigenous place names?"

My response: It might be hard for you to believe, but there are people that don't actually know everything about every topic. If you put yourself in their shoes for half a moment, you'll realise that people may actually not know that Nowra, Kiama and so on are already Indigenous names, and those people would therefore google that very question "What is the Indigenous name for Nowra".

Additionally, I don't consider what you think I do. Don't misrepresent me in order to shift the goalposts. You specifically were saying about how you could not find any places where Wikipedia was the first google result when searching for that very question. I provided examples of where Wikipedia is the first result. Nothing more, nothing less.

You said: "I suspect your methodology is flawed and I invite competent readers to try this for themselves."

My response: Yes, you've already made it clear you think I am uneducated and unscholarly. And now I'm incompetent. What's that saying, water off a ducks back.

You said: "For the three non-Indigenous names you list (out of the sixteen total!) the Wikipedia summary doesn't actually answer the question asked and is of no immediate use."

My response: Exactly, that is the point! Wikipedia is the first result and it is useless as the first result because it doesn't show the answer - it should show the answer, and we can make it do that by writing the alternate name of the place immediately next to the contemporary name so that google picks it up.

You said: "Your desire for having the Indigenous name bolded in the lead sentence"

My response: Go back and read what I said. I don't care if it is in bold or not.

You said: "a matter of personal convenience"

My response: Absolutely - website design should strive for the highest possible user convenience and ease of use. This would achieve that in a very simple way. Why on earth would you want Wikipedia to not be user friendly and convenient?

You said: "I'm unsure as to where this is coming from; you know, of course, that 35% of percentages are just made up on the spot."

My response: The research link I provided from Wikipedia's own study on why people use Wikipedia. I didn't make it up, and now I'm wondering how many of my other valid sources you've completely ignored in your crusade to delete everything I contribute to - especially given the fact you've literally deleted the sources themselves on multiple occasions to reinstate some sub-par citation someone else added.

You said: "I don't follow your reasoning."

My response: Yeah obviously, which is why you shouldn't be unfairly jumping to conclusions and accusing people of being all sorts of things.

You said: "reading through the relevant section"

My response: The relevant section for the alternate name is immediately next to the name it is directly referring to.

You said: "we might assume that you'd also like the relative humidity"

My response: This is why you shouldn't jump to conclusions. The relative humidity is not directly related to the name. The shape of the flag is not directly related to the name. The local newspaper is not directly related to the name. The alternate name is directly related to the name. There is a huge difference.

You said: "along with every other fact point in the entire bloody article"

My response: No. But sure go off on a slippery tangent.

You said: "But you think the Indigenous name (Wagga Wagga, found in the title of the article) is what people actually go looking for and you consider the rest of our article to be just background noise that stops readers from finding the one and only information of any importance: the indigenous name which is right there as the title!"

My response: No. That is a hysterical claim, calm down.

You said: "I don't accept your implicit claim that you and 35% of our readers use Wikipedia to find out the Indigenous name of a place"

My response: I did not claim that. My claim is that 35% of readers use Wikipedia to find a specific fact/quick answer, key word being 'quick' - they don't want to spend 5 minutes scrolling, which is based on the data that proves it. All facts are facts.

You said: "useful information" and "As I keep pointing out, this is of no practical use."

My response: Just because you don't think that Indigenous names are useful information doesn't mean they aren't useful to other people. For people like me, they are useful and I find it so arrogant to suggest that anything is not useful information. Everyone has their own interests, and everyones interests should be respected regardless of whether you care for the interest or not. I reckon that probably comes into the NPOV thing too. GadigalGuy (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree strongly with GadigalGuy re: this last point. As a regular user and contributor to Wikipedia, and someone who is interested in toponymy, I'm at least one other person who thinks Indigenous and other native names are useful information that belong in an encyclopaedia, particularly in the places infobox which is set up to include them, and I expect to see them here. I honestly didn't think this could be a controversial position, until this recent bout of windmill-tilting from various editors. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 11:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if it would help. But maybe check over how indigenous place names are used in Canada's pages. If this include/exclude discussion is going to repeat itself across multiple Australian place pages? A tie-breaker might be to see how other countries handle the topic. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Does Canada have any relevant policy on this? The Quebecois chose rebat les cartes. --Pete (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

If you mean French-language names? It would be impossible to remove those from Canadian place pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Eh bien, non, c'était moi d'être désinvolte. I mean Indigenous place names. My experience of Canada is limited to a weekend in Toronto. I look at places like Calgary and Edmonton and see no Indigenous names in the first sentence of the lede. Or anywhere at all, really. --Pete (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Another option? Begin an RFC at WP:PLACE for clarification, if required. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need go that far to begin with. I was hoping Canley could give more information, maybe again point me to something I've missed. I may ask for clarification. LATER: here. --Pete (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

So.... what's the consensus here? GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a consensus here. I think at least one of the participants is playing a personal game where wikipolicy has no bearing. On the specific matter of the "..or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place…" guideline, there is a definite consensus at the talk page for WP:PLACE that this does not apply to Indigenous names except in specific circumstances. It is not carte blanche to put Indigenous names in the lede as an alternative name. So that red herring has been laid to rest. --Pete (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You and three other guys vaguely agreeing does not equal a definite consensus, especially on the specific topic of Indigenous names. There are just as many people on that talk link you provided saying there is no clear argument for either position. Let’s stick to the facts Pete. GadigalGuy (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

What is a clear fact is the closed RfC on this issue saying there there is a minor consensus in favour of inclusion of these names and a stronger consensus for well-sourced inclusion. If @Skyring wants to keep pushing this argument and forum-shopping to get their way it will have to go to the Administrators Noticeboard. Poketama (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Poketama:, my friend, I would like to remind you that you are wrong. There is no any consensus. The fact that very many users have spoken in the discussion, and if there are a few more votes one way or the other, does not automatically mean consensus. Please stop posting that the RfC endorsed your idea or the like, because this is not true. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Not the number of votes are counted, but the strength of the arguments. Wikipedia:Consensus is clear: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. I regret to inform you that, due to the fact that you are very and very agitating in one option of dispute, are the last person who has the right to decide what is the result of the RfC. These are the rules and standards of Wikipedia. Sorry. User, as third opinion, who summarized RfC also wrote: "Now what exactly constitutes used is going to be a tough nut to crack in some circumstances, but that's for individual talk pages". So, anyone has the right to revert and start a discussion (about this topic) in any article if they see a problem, and your comments like this and like this intimidate other users. User Pete or any other user has the right to start a new discussion if he sees a problem with the article - so the user has edited correctly and this has nothing to do with Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP. Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP is clear, it involves creating multiple threads on the same subject to prevent one consistent discussion, however, there was one coherent discussion on this matter, the result of which is unequivocal: no consensus. In such a situation, the new discussions after the end of the RfC are correct. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

See the comments made by Canley above (diff here). We are talking about some very specific wording in the WP:PLACE guideline, hence the title of this section. I'm trying to find existing policy on this topic, not start from scratch. --Pete (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I am well aware of that quotation, because I have cited it a dozen times to you. If you're now seeking after the RfC to discredit the inclusion of First Nations placenames based on questioning the quotation, I'd say that's forum shopping. Poketama (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The point is that your interpretation is wrong. I sought clarification on this specific point and there is no support for your view. You are currently engaged in discussion there and can see this for yourself. Feel free to push this as far as you want; the issue is obviously important to you and finding out how policy is shaped can only serve to help you find resolution if not satisfaction.

Flapping your hands around really hard and insisting in the face of all evidence that your interpretation is the correct one isn't a productive course of action in consensus-building.

The wording is ambiguous but whenever it has been discussed on the talk page - including in the extensive and searchable archives - your view has not been supported. If you think otherwise, please provide a diff.

I think that we may need to have the wording clarified and that probably means a lot more discussion and an RfC on the policy page. That's not forum shopping, that's just the way Wikipedia works to clarify how to do things so editors aren't constantly undoing each other's work. You should have been here for the AD/BC/CE/BCE thing where the Christians were changing 123 CE to 123 AD and the non-Christians were changing them back again. That got worked out and a policy developed that everyone could live with.

As for the recent RfC, why would I be unhappy with it? It supports the inclusion of Indigenous names in the lede on a case by case basis, and that means consensus. Some Indigenous names are widely accepted in common usage and it would be difficult to mount an argument that they should not be included. Contrariwise some Indigenous names do not have much current usage. If you want it included here you have to find consensus for it to be placed in the lede. There is zero opposition to it being in the body of the article along with good sourcing, but including it in the lede is contentious, and if you think that edit-warring is the path forward you are dead wrong; we shall use the normal Wikiprocedure on dispute resolution and whatever outcome that comes out with is the one that everyone will have to support.

Do you understand this? --Pete (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any support in discussion there for the notion that the guideline at WP:PLACE - "is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted" - can be used to justify the blanket inclusion of Indigenous names as alternates in the lead. Thank you, Canley, for bringing this point up but it seems a dead end. Again, if anyone can find a contrary interpretion in the extensive current and archived discussion, please provide a diff. --Pete (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Clyde River Indigenous name

Moved from Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board

 – Canley (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I've reviewed the Clyde River (New South Wales) article and moved the information about Indigenous naming and first residents down to a "History and naming" section. The sources given are rather thin in nature and there is no support for the claim that the Indigenous name is widely used; they all note the historical significance rather than a name in wide use currently.

User:GadigalGuy promises better sources supporting more prominence but until then I'm not seeing things like national park notes as being sufficiently authoritative to justify taking up most of the lede. What sources did they use? What evidence is there that "Bhundoo" is used enough to justify it as an alternative name? As a Canberran I'm often down that way and even in the wokest of Canberra circles the references are never to anything but "the Clyde".

I've removed one of the sources: a high school website where the four school houses are named after four local rivers: Bredbo, Clyde, Molonglo, and Snowy. The Indigenous name for Clyde is given in passing in background notes. This is very thin.

And again, if I may get some further input or comments on my draft essay on this topic. I'd like to get some solid policy foundation on WP:LEDE, MoS and so on. --Pete (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You didn't move the information and citations, you deleted all of it. You didn't review a random article, you went to my contribution list and have started targeting me multiple times. Are you going to just remove every single thing I contribute now Pete? I disagreed with your approach while actually agreeing with you on a talk page, explaining that people read Wikipedia for various reasons and that your claim that they're not reading it for the Indigenous names can't be justified because I and others do take an interest in learning about those - that some people do find that information interesting and useful, and immediately since you've begun going out of your way to target me quite vindictively, saying I'm being disruptive and woke and removing anything and everything I contribute. I've provided valid sources from government agencies, historical records from archives like the National Library dating back to the 1800's like you wanted, even including news articles which reference the widespread current usage locally that you asked for. Quite frankly, I don't see the point in giving up my own time to be targeted, name-called, attacked with racial stereotypes such as condescending notion that you shouldn't have to educate me and shut down by you time and time again. You made me feel so unwelcome a year ago which was the whole reason I stopped contributing for ages, and just when I start to give contributing another go, you're at it again. I don't know where or who I'm meant to report the behaviour to because quite frankly, you're not a team player, you're actively driving me away from Wikipedia - I want to be able to contribute and improve Wikipedia, well, I think I do anyway, I'm questioning why I should bother now... if someone can please point me in the right direction here. This is beyond a joke, and no amount of fake moral high ground will convince me you're doing it in good faith anymore, I should've learnt that last year but fool me once I guess. GadigalGuy (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As the RFC ruling was to handle this topic on a page-by-page basis. Would I be accurate in assuming you've gained consensus for any additions to pages? If you have? Then reversions of those additions would be problematic. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The page isn't a high profile one, and some of the things he has removed (including the name Bhundoo) have been there since 2008 so I'd say there was consensus. GadigalGuy (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I see. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

GadigalGuy, note: the existence of any information in the article for few years is by no means a consensus. Article of Clyde River (New South Wales) with length of 102 km is small river, the article is read by a small number of people. It is very common that errors in this type of niche article are detected after several years. Someone read the article, saw the error / inaccuracy and reacted - this is normal. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 05:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Silence and consensus

It is a consensus, however weak. Poketama (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" I'll also note this policy page. Poketama (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

As the Wikipedia:Silence and consensus 'essay makes clear:

Consensus can be presumed until disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others.

You may be confident that whatever weak consensus this little-used article may have had for the inclusion of the Indigenous name in the lede has vanished because disagreement has become evident, and is - as anyone may see - the subject of lengthy discussion here. We are living in a post RfC environment and that boils down to individual talk pages where usage is not general. --Pete (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Pish. A WP:SPA conducting a crusade needs to be monitored. Looking at the talk page, nobody has raised the issue of the crap sourcing until now. If you think that because nobody noticed that a high school web page on school house names was being used as a source and that constitutes a consensus for keeping it, then think again. We need good solid sourcing. Do the research, get it right, you'll be a Wikipedia hero and we all bask in your reflected glory. Insist on shit highschool webpage sourcing and you'll be the opposite, bringing us all down. --Pete (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

"Pish"? Really that's what you think of my concerns? I am not 'conducting a crusade', and with this single article, my edits were specifically finding and adding sources, not putting information in the lede as you are claiming I've done. You seem to be stuck on this one single source which was one that I could find specifically explaining in the etymology section only, that the word Bhundoo means deep water, it is not a source to say that it is the name they give the river. It was a source for the meaning of the word in the etymology section. I find it extremely concerning that you seem so intent and feel the need to 'monitor' me. That makes me so uncomfortable and I'd like to openly ask you to stop doing that please. It doesn't matter whether you've been editing Wikipedia for 2 years or 64 years, it is not your job to 'monitor' me - we are meant to be equals here - and surely you've got better things to do with your time than to effectively go after everything I contribute to. For the last time, please leave me alone and stop going after me. GoodDay has given some good advice below. GadigalGuy (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Pete: Questioning sourcing is one thing and that's fine (and I agree the school website reference was not ideal and worth questioning), making (unfounded) accusations that another editor is an SPA on a crusade is another, and one which is very close to crossing a line. Raising a single article/issue dispute on the noticeboard was also inappropriate in my opinion, which is why I have moved it here. --Canley (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Be careful Skyring/Pete. You don't want any editor dragging you to WP:ANI for stalking, harassment, or whatever their impression is of your actions & posts. This ain't the Wikipedia of 10–20 years ago, trust me. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's a good reference, which also gives its sources: Bhundoo Hill at the NSW Geographical Names Board – yes, this is about a hill named after the river, but the background information says "Recorded as local Dhurga (native) name of the Upper Clyde River by Surveyor Thomas Florance in 1828. Also recorded on Mitchells Map 1834 as Clyde or Bhundoo along the lower reaches. Records State Archives NSW, Mitchell Library, Surveyors field notebooks." As to whether it's widely used, it seems pretty clear that it is, there are plenty of uses in media and government, here are some examples: ABC, Transport for NSW, NSW National Parks, many tourism websites. I'm really not sure why you trotted out the "I've never heard of it" argument, surely you're experienced enough to know that means nothing in this context. --Canley (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Look at the sources you give. Once again, nothing original, just a reference on a webpage. What about the sources those people used? Do you not think that the topic demands that we have the best possible sourcing? No, instead you want to settle for something that is one or two or three steps away from the original, each time filtered and interpreted and subject to error. I trust that you'll agree with me that this is a topic area we want to get right.

I haven't heard anyone use this name in the way that (say) Ayers Rock is now commonly referred to as Uluru. You're creating a synthetic argument here that because a few modern sources reference the name that it must be widely used. That's woolly thinking. Show me a source that states that the name is widely used. Something like this:

Almost all Australians now refer to it as Uluru.

Can you find something like this for the Clyde? --Pete (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The NSWGNB listing cites several references for NSW State Archives records, why dismiss it as "just a reference on a webpage"? That's exactly how citation and referencing works in Wikipedia, academia, publishing, and media, but that's settling "for something that is one or two or three steps away from the original, each time filtered and interpreted and subject to error"? The other links I posted were merely some examples of contemporary usage in media and government. NSW National Parks says "Bhundoo as the locals call it"—it's a bit of a high bar to set Uluru as the standard here, this river is not a high profile entity and "most Australians" would not have heard of, or ever refer to, the river by either name, so local usage noted by a reliable source is sufficient. And again, "I haven't heard anyone use this name in the way...", why even say this while in the same paragraph accusing others of woolly thinking, synthesis and shoddy referencing? --Canley (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You miss my point. I'm local. The Batemans Bay area is a frequent destination for Canberra residents, myself included. I've never heard it referred to as anything but the Clyde. I have certainly heard of Uluru, now in almost universal usage amongst Australians. Arguing that a name is widely used and not being able to find any source actually saying that is not how things work around here. It's your opinion not backed up by any source.

Again, if we are using second or third hand sourcing for something important I must ask why the hell are we doing this? Why not go to the sources those folk are using? Can you say why you think the best source is not good enough yet we should use something not as good? It's like those who insist the King James Version is the definitive Bible source when it ain't. You do see the point I'm making? --Pete (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Pete, if you said you were a local to people in the town on the basis of being a Canberran who visits occasionally, you'd be laughed out of town. You're not a Batemans Bay local, you're a tourist from a city two hours drive away and from what I can see online, the relationship between Canberrans and Batemans Bay locals is considered 'rocky' - What gives you any authority just because you personally have never heard of it? I've actually heard it be used, does that somehow make me an authority, or are we not equals here? As someone who has spent more than my fair share of time in Canberra, I can confidently say that when people talk about 'the Clyde', they're referring to the mountain, not the river. The actual Batemans Bay locals do in fact refer to the river as Bhundoo as the links above from Canley show. You said "Show me a source that states that the name is widely used" - Canley has provided one that says quite plainly "Bhundoo as the locals call it", if the locals call it that, that is wide use. With a quick bit of googling this morning I can see that there are plenty of Tourism websites, the local Council, news articles, posts on social media, all referring to the river as Bhundoo, that is wide use. GadigalGuy (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Show me a source that says that Bhundoo is widely used. If we do not have a reliable source, then we cannot say so in wikivoice, and if the name is not widely used then it's not important enough to be in the lede, especially if the lede consists of one sentence. It is good to be in the history section, and nobody is saying otherwise. So it seems to me that you are pushing for undue prominence of something that is close to your WP:SPA heart, and that's not how Wikipedia works.

Why not do as I ask and build consensus for your preferred version? --Pete (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see the point you're making at all. I think the Geographic Names Board, which has also cited its primary sources, is a good source. Wikipedia is supposed to use secondary sources over primary ones as you well know. What are you saying is the best source? I'm sure you're not saying it's your opinion as a Canberra local, but that's what's coming across to me because I've provided the state naming authority as a pretty good secondary source, which you are dismissing while mentioning three times that you've never heard of it [the name being used I mean], then saying I'm pushing my opinion without any sourcing. Look, this is going to clog up the noticeboard again, I think we should move the discussion to the talk page (where there is already a thread). --Canley (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If you want to see some primary sources, here is a University of Newcastle feature on the 1834 map by Thomas Mitchell. Please don't dismiss it because it's a Wordpress site, the main point is the detailed scan of the map in State Archives which the NSWGNB refers to, in which Mitchell labels the river as "Bundoo or Clyde River". I agree about the school website source though, should have something better than that for the "deep water" meaning. And why are contemporary government and media mentions of the name not sufficient for demonstrating significant recent use by reliable sources, but an BBC article mentioning usage of Uluru (which by the way does not list citations either for this claim that most Australians use that name, I mean we all know it but it's still a bit "feelings" not references) is fine and a gold standard? --Canley (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is another source from the NSW Government which refers to the river as "Bhundoo (Clyde River)" and "Bhundoo River". It also has a text reference to records from 1828 by surveyor Thomas Florance. GadigalGuy (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the map. No, of course I'm not dismissing it because it's on a Wordpress site. Unless we go and look at the thing in the archives with white cotton gloves on, this sort of thing is as good as we get or need. I'm not doubting the authenticity of the scan. My point about contemporary mentions has been made multiple times, but I'll say it again. We are viewing these original names through a colonial British lens over an immense distance of time. The closer we can get to the original, and the best interpretation - by linguists and historians, rather than webmasters and journalists - we can get, the better.

I've kept some low-grade contemporary sources in the history section, but we can do better, and we need to do better because this is a significant topic.

My point about the BBC is that they are a reliable source for reporting on current usage. My wretch of a wife called me away to do some shopping before I could find anything more local but I make no doubt we can find the ABC or SMH saying that Uluru is widely used by Australians. I'm not seeing anything about Bundoo/Bhundoo being widely used, just a lot of OR. --Pete (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok so you do agree that those historical references via secondary sources are valid. Either accept and leave my edits alone with those valid sources, or do it better yourself if you think my edits are not up to scratch. Wikipedia does have a 'do not delete' policy and citation needed tag remember. I also can not ignore the way you just spoke about a woman, that is actually disgusting behaviour. Misogyny in any form is never acceptable. GadigalGuy (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm well into my eighth decade and I have fond memories of the columnist Buzz Kennedy whose trademark phrase this was. His daughter is one of my FB friends and she confirms - as was obvious to all who read his work - that Buzz had the highest regard for his wife. As do I. Perhaps you would like to withdraw the abhorrent personal attack you made in ignorance? --Pete (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

May I press you for comment on this, GadigalGuy? I don't feel personally insulted by an ill-informed swipe but I would like you to clear this up rather than have you believe something of me that is not true.'. --Pete (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this reference, Canley. If anyone in this discussion is calling the Geographical Names Board of NSW, a statutory body whose sole remit is the official names of things, inadequately authoritative, well they're doing absurdist comedy and can be dismissed out of hand. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 03:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the WP:PLACE guideline, a source of some discussion here. Official names are not necessarily what Wikipedia uses. Common names are preferred because those are the names used by the people rather than bureaucrats. Usually the two coincide, but not in every case. --Pete (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Though I participated here, minimally. I'm going to have to pull out, as another concern has arisen, at another article. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Having taken care of some Canadian articles business, I've returned. So... what's the consensus on this matter? GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Protection?

I was considering requesting 'protection' for this page (like we got at Melbourne & recently had at Sydney), but I've chosen not to. Those folks over there, would likely gradually become tired of me, showing up every few days with a request. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Indigenous name in first sentence

The Indigenous name Bhundoo is given in the main article under "Naming" but the sources are weak and do not indicate that the name is in common English usage as per WP:PLACE. Using this name in the lede is therefore WP:UNDUE. I'll accept that the name is in minority usage but a few low-grade sources do not make for the sort of widespread usage in English that deserves prominence. --Pete (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Same answer to this as always. "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages".

You are very aware of this policy, so cut it out.

Also see ScottishFinnishRadish's response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Poketama#RfC_2.

If your problem is with the source, What problem do you have the with the source? NSW Government in consultation with local Elders, published in 2022. Seems like a good source to me. Poketama (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Two points. You are wrong on WP:PLACE. The Indigenous name is not used by at least 10% of sources in the English-language, nor is the "group of people which used to inhabit this geographical location" wording meant to cover indigenous names like this. I've asked several times about this and neither you nor anyone else has come up with anything in the extensive talk page archives to support your claim. If you think that you, with zero evidence, are correct, well we'll just run it past an RfC and see how that goes. That's no roll of the die; stylistic conventions that operate wikiwide tend to be treated with seriousness because if we don't get those rules right then we get crusaders exploiting loopholes and causing unrest.

Secondly, the sources are not good. Once again they are not definitive. Current sources rather than historical. We can ask, well, where did the library/football club/town council get their information? Go back to the first sources and there is no dispute. Use tertiary sources and it's not easily checked as to veracity and context.

As for SFR's words in a long user talkpage thread, perhaps you would be so kind as to supply the diff? --Pete (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)