Talk:Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park

Untitled

biased and full of extraeneous info to do with parking and toilet facilities. Wants substantial re-write to make it encyclopaedic. raining_girl 21:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of name?

Does anyone know the meaning of "Ku-ring-gai"? I'm assuming it has meaning in an Aboriginal language. Trcunning 18:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Ku-ring-gai is the name of the aboriginal tribe that inhabited the area before european settlement. --Ozhiker 19:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326050402/http://www.wildwalks.com/bushwalking-and-hiking-in-nsw/ku-ring-gai-chase-national-park/jerusalem-bay.html to http://www.wildwalks.com/bushwalking-and-hiking-in-nsw/ku-ring-gai-chase-national-park/jerusalem-bay.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100329001821/http://www.wildwalks.com/bushwalking/general/general_items_render.html?action=view_item to http://www.wildwalks.com/bushwalking/general/general_items_render.html?action=view_item&item_id=1217

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Indigenous history and "what's in a name"

Referring to the new additions and reverts of 20 July 2020. here I suggest there is some good in it that we should use, but it seemed easier to just revert and start again. Henni1978, thank you for your suggestions, and based on the below comments, perhaps you can provided a revised new addition to the article and others (me?) can modify if required. Also pinging Laterthanyouthink

Below I've expanded on a few comments from my edit summaries with suggested ways forward. It's the wikipedia way to bat things back and forward to a new refined consensus version. I refer to the "Existing" as pre-Henni's edit, and the new proposed word's as "Henni's".

Comments and some suggestions:

• I would agree the existing article and its lead doesn't cover indigenous history sufficiently - we can expand the coverage here. With the existing lead only having 2 sentences on the whole history (or 3 if you include the sentence on the name), a new contribution in the lead would not need more than 1 or 2 concise summary sentences about indigenous history with ample room for detailed info in the main body (as is the wikipedia way).
• This is an article about the Park. It is not about the term "Ku-ring-gai" and the first two paragraphs of the lead should not be a discussion of different views of the term. It would be OK perhaps to have 1 sentence in the main body on the different views of the Kuringgai term (with a link to the Kuringgai article), but this issue should not form the opening 2 or 3 paragraphs of the lead before any other discussion of the topic as it did with Henni's proposal.
• Some sources might argue that the name "Ku-ring-gai" is a poorly derived, but the point of this article is not to dive into to an alternative view of the veracity of the term. "Ku-ring-gai" is indeed the name of the park, and all sources suggest that it was at least intended to refer to an indigenous group and/or groups. The article on the term itself, Kuringgai, would be a better place for that point and perhaps we follow the that article's description of the term:

Kuringgai (also spelled Ku-ring-gai, Kuring-gai, Guringai, Kuriggai) (IPA: [kuriŋɡai],[1]) is an ethnonym referring to (a) an hypothesis regarding an aggregation of Indigenous Australian peoples occupying the territory between the southern borders of the Gamilaraay and the area around Sydney (b) perhaps an historical people with its own distinctive language, located in part of that territory, or (c) people of Aboriginal origin who identify themselves as descending from the original peoples denoted by (a) or (b) and who call themselves Guringai.

• There's a few style issues in henni's proposal, but that's fine...we can fix these. For example, the encyclopedia should present information, but it shouldn't give instructions or suggestions such as "...it is important to acknowledge...". Ie, "it is important" is an opinion and therefore not neutral.
• I suggest these are good things to keep in mind: WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:ADVOCACY.
• For consideration: why is the Aboriginal Heritage Office a better source on the name of the park than the NPWS?

Let's see what we can all do. :) --Merbabu (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Traditional owners

Relevant edits: [1][2][3]

As illustrated in Native title in Australia § Traditional owner, "traditional owners" is not a proper noun - the term alone does not denote a specific person or persons. It is a common noun, referring to a class of people, and thus sentence case is used per MOS:CAPS. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The Australian Government Style Guide states that 'Preferences for capitals when the terms ‘traditional owner’, ‘elder’ and ‘custodian’ are used as titles should come directly from the relevant First Nations community.' The section of the style guide on Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Peoples states that 'Examples of words that are sometimes capitalised include Elders, Country or Traditional Custodians.' There are other sources that support this not referenced here. As such, the term traditional owner/Traditional Owner, and other First Nations terminology, can be either common nouns or proper nouns as determined by the relevant community. Referencing a Wikipedia page about Native Title is not an appropriate or reliable source for determining this matter. WikiNerdOMG (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses its own style guide, not the Australian Government's and MOS:CAPS is clear on capitalisation. Note in particular that it says "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia"; your ref itself uses lower case "traditional owners", and mentions that those words are "sometimes [not consistently] capitalised".

Preferences for capitals when the terms ‘traditional owner’ ... are used as titles — In this context - "the Traditional Owners of the area" - "traditional owners" is not a title, as is evident by the use of the article (grammar) before term. See also the relevant (ie Wikipedia's) style guide: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles of people. In this context "traditional owners" is generic use - it is not "juxtaposed with [a] person's name".

Mitch Ames (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

As you know, Mitch, I've been trying to get buy-in, discussion and consensus on my Draft guide to Australian Indigenous terminology, but there's been very little so far. While I don't think that it covers this term at the moment, some of the guides recommend initial capitals, and I have seen it spelt this way often. Initial caps are seen as a mark of respect, and also used increasingly for other terms, such as Elder. This is why a fuller discussion needs to take place, so that Australian editors can jointly decide what style to use for these kinds of peculiarly Australian Indigenous usages. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Initial caps are seen as a mark of respect — MOS does not say to capitalise as a mark of respect, it says to capitalise proper names. (A proper name/noun isn't just "something we think is important or deserves respect", it has a specific well defined grammatical meaning, as explained in the linked article.) In fact MOS:SIGNIFCAPS says "Initial capitals ... should not be used ... for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something".

some of the guides recommend initial capitals — MOS requires more than "some of the guides"; it requires "consistently ... in a substantial majority of ... sources".

There doesn't seem to be a problem with initial capitalisation as a mark of respect where such a usage is already well established: for example, "Founding Fathers" as in Founding Fathers of the United States. But I also agree with MOS that it should not be introduced by WP. I think it would be strange, anyway, to have a proper name "Traditional Owners" when the sign (or whatever) should go on to specify those owners by their authentic proper name: for example, Gadigal. Errantius (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

2 quick things: I should have added "among Indigenous Australians" after "mark of respect". If you google "traditional owners", the majority of the first page or two of hits do actually use initial caps. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's style guide MOS:CAPS is clear and does not support the capitalization of terms as a mark of respect. Any further discussion in this matter ought to be raised there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS says nothing about capitalisation as mark of respect. If you think it is prevented, change Founding Fathers of the United States. Errantius (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek One problem with trying to discuss there is that when an Australian local usage topic is raised, such as I raised re Indigenous and Aboriginal in 2019, and others discussed back in 2014, there's rarely any understanding or buy-in from non-Australian editors (or even the Australian ones), and the pool of Australian editors is very small. This is why I wanted to create a local style guide as agreed by Australian editors, and then put it to the broader Wikipedian community as to how best to incorporate it into MOS. You'd have to look very hard to find general Australian sources created after around 2000 that don't capitalise Indigenous and Aboriginal when talking about people (looking at Google Scholar, capitals seem to have been adopted much earlier, even from the 1950s), and it looks very odd to Australian eyes to see the terms uncapitalised these days (and I see the Canadians are also going with capitalisation now too). I suspect that traditional owner may well be going the same way, although this could be a wait-and-see matter. I'm thinking that maybe the term could do with its own article anyway, as there's quite a lot that could go into it - I will start looking into this when I have more time. And add this term to the draft style guide. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"MOS:CAPS says nothing about capitalisation as mark of respect. ... Founding Fathers of the United States." — MOS:CAPS does say (with my emphasis) "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" - the use of "only" excludes everything else, including "respect". (Speaking as an Australian...) My understanding is that "Founding Fathers" is consistently capitalised and is considered a proper noun. "Traditional owners" is not consistently capitalised, and is not a proper noun. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right, Mitch, as is Michael Bednarek. However (on my learning curve), proper noun says that we should be talking about proper names, which MOS:CAPS allows. Thus neither "Founding Fathers" nor "traditional owner/s" is a proper noun (because not a noun) but accepted usage seems to allow the former but not (as yet?) the latter to be to be used as a proper name. Errantius (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Parallel discussion at WT:MOSCAPS#Traditional owners. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Policies change over time as new information comes to light, for example, the White Australia Policy which mandated the removal of half caste children from Aboriginal mothers in order to assimilate the children into white Australia was revoked and resulted in what we now know as the Stolen Generation. Just because there is a policy at a point in time does not mean that it is the right policy and that improvements cannot be made following appropriate consideration. We need to stay open to new information becoming available over time. There are a lot of sources that use both capitalisation or otherwise for many Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander terms - examples provided by others here. As stated, First Nations people themselves need to be involved in the discussion and decision making.

Also note that Guringai Traditional Owners and Garigal are both proper nouns. Guringai is the language nation and Garigal is the clan name - both are names in this context.WikiNerdOMG (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It's all part of the process of decolonsation.WikiNerdOMG (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Guringai Traditional Owners and Garigal are both proper nouns — "Guringai" and "Garigal" are undeniably proper nouns; "traditional owner(s)" is not.

... a lot of sources ... is not the same as "consistently ... in a substantial majority of ... sources".

First Nations people themselves need to be involved in the discussion and decision making — All people, of all nations, are welcome to discuss Wikipedia's policies, including Wikipedia's style guide, and contribute to the consensus that determines how Wikipedia capitalises words. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that 'All people, of all nations, are welcome to discuss Wikipedia's policies ...' however, to ensure that the 'consensus' is equitable First Nations people need to have appropriate representation in the discussion. A decision in which their input has not been appropriately weighted is floored.WikiNerdOMG (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Bold formatting

re: [4][5][6][7]

MOS:BOLD says (with my emphasis here) "Boldface ... is considered appropriate only for certain usages", and the relevant text in this article does not meet any of the usages listed.

If you want them to be headings, make them headings (but move the links - MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS; use {{main}} if necessary). Alternatively format them using MOS:DEFLIST. Personally I do not think either is necessary or appropriate, but I won't object if you think it's worth doing.

Mitch Ames (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The MOS does not say that the items listed there are the "certain usages". It also does not rule those uses out. The formatting you removed is based on your own (flawed) interpretation of the MOS. You removed formatting that made the article easier to read, and your flimsy interpretation lessened the article. --Merbabu (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The MOS does not say that the items listed there are the "certain usages" — So what are the "certain usages"? Please quote the relevant text from MOS, in particular the part that applies in this case. It seems unlikely that MOS would say "only for certain usages" and then not actually tell us what the "certain usages" are.

It also does not rule those uses out. — I suggest that the word "only" does exclude the usages not explicitly listed. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

For someone insisting the MOS is clear, you rely too much on words such as "seems" and "suggest". The fact is, the MOS wording is loose enough and it does not say, for example, "it must only before theses following uses". And, it does not say specifically that my usage is not allowed. So given these two points, and the fact that my bolding was an improvement irrespective of how you may be interpreting the MOS (and you have not shown it isn't an improvement) there is no issue. regards, --Merbabu (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

you rely too much on words such as ... "suggest". — I'm trying to be polite. What I meant of course is "I'm right and you're wrong", but that does not lend itself to civil discussion. But feel free to offer a rebuttal to the specific points that I was making.

it does not say, for example, "it must only before theses following uses" — Yes it does:

• MOS:BOLD#OTHER says "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases:" followed by a bullet list of those special cases that does not include the disputed usage in this article.
• MOS:BADEMPHASIS says "Avoid various kinds of overemphasis, which distracts from the writing: ... Bold type is reserved for certain uses." Those usages are listed explicitly (in the linked section Boldface) as " Article title terms", "Automatically applied boldface" (which obviously does not apply here), "Other uses" (none of which cover the disputed usage in this article).

my bolding was an improvement — ... in your opinion, but not mine. It does not align with the consensus of editors as reflected by MOS - which exists to "maintain articles with ... consistent ... formatting" independently of your and my personal opinions as to what is "better". Mitch Ames (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It's all yours. Un-bold away. It is better with bold but i can see you're not for changing or going to let it go. happy sunday...it's a lovely day out there. --Merbabu (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Well done. WP is now a little less good, but at least you've made a firm stand for the rules. --Merbabu (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)