Talk:Djab Wurrung people

Image copyright problem with File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg

The image File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Djab wurrung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/5BA77B7B839991C1CA2573A000008787/$File/2007-21+Cultural+heritage+report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724015131/http://www.oaklandshillwindfarm.com.au/planning_permit/appendices/Appendix%20J%20-%20Archaeological%20Assessment.pdf to http://www.oaklandshillwindfarm.com.au/planning_permit/appendices/Appendix%20J%20-%20Archaeological%20Assessment.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091014132058/http://barney.asap.unimelb.edu.au/vald/biogs/VAL0015b.htm to http://barney.asap.unimelb.edu.au/vald/biogs/VAL0015b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Article name

The name Djab wurrung is an ugly anachronism. The contemporary linguistic evidence (Barry Blake etc) writes it as Tjapwurrung, and that should be how the page should be renamed. Anyone?Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Direction Trees

This article in the Independent mentions the Djab wurrung having 'Direction trees' I also notice the trees form part of the burial rites, is that connected to the same tree that is associated at birth? EdwardLane (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, just realised that I phrased that as a question - it was just the one that sprang to mind - Basically I think the article should have something about the direction trees - and I'm hoping you (yes, you there reading this - you know who you are) know about them and ideally have a good reference for them. EdwardLane (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Binoy Kampmark

Kampmark, Binoy (4 November 2020). "Sawing the Sacred: Felling the Djab Wurrung Directions Tree". CounterPunch.

This is a perfectly good source. Kampmark is a senior lecturer in journalism at RMIT University. He was a Commonwealth Scholar awardee at Selwyn College, Cambridge where he obtained his Phd 16 years ago. He is widely published in mainstream journals and magazines, not least of which by the Times Higher Education. As a Melbournian he has first hand access to incidents in Djab wurrung territory, apart from growing up in an area where aboriginal cultures are thick on the ground.

That he writes for CounterPunch is neither here nor there. Deprecation does not mean we may boost our edit count by ignoring the quality of the specific piece and its authors' professional qualifications to elide perfectly good journalistic reportage on site by noted writers, particularly, as here, when they have first hand knowledge of the facts.Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the history, you seem to be the single editor demanding to preserve the deprecated source against multiple editors who disagree with you. Clearly, that the writing is in a deprecated source is here or there. Are you claiming he has never said this in an RS? - David Gerard (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to save you more trouble. I took the trouble to write 660+ Aboriginal articles from scratch. Two years of my life. Work, hard laborious, discriminating toil. Like the I/P area, I know the literature and can recognize those who are experts. I never use poor sources (even if they state many things my private POV might be tempted to endorse): in fact I eliminate such sources, even chucking out material that I personally think of merit or potentially useful, and that is painful, esp. on these sensitive topic areas where systemic bias is endemic (reportage on the Australian aborigines has been, notoriously, highly biased and scrappy).

Anyone seeing the satanic 'deprecated' scar can ratchet up another easy edit by eliding a piece appearing in CounterPunch on sight, without looking into the background of who wrote it, or reading the article for five minutes, cross-checking it, and seeing if there are alternative articles in the thousands of of sources not yet deprecated (and I have to put up seeing POV pushers cite regularly scores of sources that are thoroughly disreputable, and known to be such by informed readers, but which people like myself don't waste their time in arguing for deprecation through due process.) I am arrogant enough to believe I have the professional background to assess quality - I've even published in an encyclopedia, on request, and, despite writing in a foreign language, my contribution on a controversial topic was accepted without question by the book's editor, whose approach is diametrically opposed to my own. Kampmark is a fine journalist, widely published in mainstream outlets. So it is a matter of informed judgement. An analysis of the piece you question shows he didn't as 90% of our mainstream journalism does, recycle and rewrite a paraphrasing synthesis of what he googled: he obviously picked up the telephone and rang round and checked sources by interviews, producing the best newspaper comment I could find on this particular incident. He lives close to the area where these incidents took place. And, if I had thought the piece poorly or hastily written, I would have binned it.

So I have no problem with the fact that CounterPunch is deprecated since it means generally unreliable, and in any case, a large amount of the content there I've read reads like self-righteous hot air of zero encyclopedic value. But 16 years of occasional browsing have impressed me with the obvious fact that scores of highly reputable scholars and journalists do opt to publish at times in that venue, - people whose scholarly or professional backgrounds I am familiar with (Alexander Cockburn was widely acknowledged as one of the best journalists of his day when writing for the Wall Street Journal, and did not go off the deep end later) - and they clearly write cogently on topics, with numerous details of encyclopedic value which do not appear, casting round, to be available elsewhere. When that occurs, I cite them, even now, because they form an exception to the general rule. Not to do that, in my book, is to behave like, to use ballistically hyperbolic analogies, numerous judges who, in a fraught ideological world, applied the letter of the law insouciant to the complexities of law in given realities, the likes of Robert Bellarmine, Thomas Audley, Vasiliy Ulrikh Roland Freisler, Oswald Rothaug. In short, a deprecation majority, of less than middling quality mainly to judge by their reasoning and edit records, socks included, using dubious evidence, singled out Counterpunch, and laid down a rule. We are obliged to follow it. Fine, but the informed comments of editors of great standing over several ensuing discussions show that its application is not clear cut, that margins for exception should exist. I agree with them, and I will continue, case by case, to restore material erased mechanically where my considered judgment tells me that the piece in question, even if it appears in a venue like CounterPunch, retains an encyclopedically serviceable quality. Those who disagree can argue the point on the talk page, and if, there, a majority challenge my judgment cogently by showing the inadequacy of my own arguments (WP:CONSENSUS) in those cases, I will again accept that majority view and acquiesce. Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In short, the question here is, 'Is Kampmark' unreliable for what he reports on this incident?' I have given my justifications above, and no one has replied or challenged them so far on this talk page. Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)