Talk:Melbourne

	Melbourne Meetup Next: Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne/46 - Tuesday 13 August, 2024 (watch) Last: 18 February 2023
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Indigenous names for cities such as Melbourne

The is a bit of an edit war about adding text that starts with "The assignment of Aboriginal names to cities ..". This is probably a good addition to the article, but it needs a source. Until then, it will keep getting deleted. --Bduke (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

And it needs a better back story than an Aboriginal ELDER with only 30 years experience in the culture. That makes no sense at all. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The source is given as 3AW along with an audio recording. Is 3AW not a reliable source? When did that happen? --Pete (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that I was the one who complained about it being unsourced, as you said in your Edit summary? And what part of Bold, REVERT, Discuss do you not understand? HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Leave out the personal attack please, HiLo. Lets stick to Wikiprocedure. The content is reliably sourced and just because you don't like it doesn't mean that we throw NPOV out the window. 3AW is a reliable source? YES/NO --Pete (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I made no personal attack. I made no comment on the source. I DID comment on you breaching WP:BRD. But since you asked, in my humble opinion, 3AW is not a great source on matters such as this. It consistently takes a conservative position on most issues. I am sure it's telling the truth about what this particular "elder" said, but one can cherry pick one's elders, and the description of an elder having 30 years experience in Aboriginal culture makes no sense. HiLo48 (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"It consistently takes a conservative position on most issues." Um, you do understand how WP:NPOV works? Your own opinion is of no particular value here: we work from reliable sources with a variety of views. I thought - to be frank - you'd be all over this outlet. They use the word "Football" to describe Aussie Rules, unlike every national news outlet with a sports section where the word is used to describe Football. --Pete (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

That's waaaaaayyy off-topic here. You've breached WP:BRD here. Your edit has been reverted and the page has been protected. Will you please try to discuss the primary point I made here, about an alleged 30 year old elder. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The 30 year elder is dodgy, but even if it was a 60 year old elder or 300 year elder transported in time, it still would be one source. This needs more than one source. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 22:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought the 'aboriginal content dispute' was over :( GoodDay (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, no. Some are keen to continue it. This was just a rather weird addition to the article, stating that an Aboriginal ELDER has all of 30 years experience as an Aboriginal. He must be a very young elder. HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I may ask for protection of this page, in what its status quo was. Whatever that was. GoodDay (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this seems a very weird addition, just the opinion of one person with a highly dubious, barely reliable, source. There should be a more solid basis to this claim with at least one RS, for it to pass WP:NPOV. In any case, it is not specific to Melbourne so looks very out of place here and should simply be left out, unless a consensus can be reached to include something similar after further discussion and investigation. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Melbourne is large, with many sources. I don't see a point in adding an opinion if there is only one source covering the opinion. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 21:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I've requested protection for this page, until a consensus can be reached on the proposed inclusion of said-new material. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I recommend inclusion of the new material because:

1) It complies with WP rules and regulations

2) There is a high level of interest in this topic

3) There is strong support on WP TALK for indigenous perspectives. Simulaun (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with the use of the source to say that some dispute the use of the name. There is contention within any community. I've seen this Elder referenced before, they are pretty active in Melbourbe. You may find a better source on the ABC. What you shouldn't do however is use one person's POV to erase other well sourced work. Poketama (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I've seen this guy active in many sources - behind the Herald-Sun paywall on the same topic, for example - and despite HiLo's concern about sources that he doesn't like because they don't match his politics, I think NPOV applies here.

And yes, I agree, he's an addition, not a replacement. The topic of Indigenous names is hardly something that's cut and dried. If there is valid criticism - or valid support, for that matter - then we should include it. I'm all in favour of getting as much good and useful information on this topic in the article as possible. My beef isn't with Indigenous names, it's with WP:UNDUE prominence for things that aren't really notable in themselves. --Pete (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

One day Pete/Skyring will stop talking about me. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I would oppose inclusion per WP:WEIGHT and Notability. Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't publish the opinions of non-notable people, especially in its disputed form where the opinion of one non-notable individual is just left there, almost hanging. Secondly, too much weight has been given on the opinion of an unknown person, creating a false equivalence to the coverage that recognises these Indigenous names. Those wishing to include this individual's comments should make an article for this person if his opinion is so valid. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Two points. This guy is not unknown; a Google search shows he is a prolific commentator on Indigenous issues and one wonders why various media sources would give him space if he were worthless. Second, do you really want to dismiss an Indigenous voice on an Indigenous matter? This is kind of like saying that women are not worth hearing from on feminist - or feminine - subjects.--Pete (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Given your knowledge of him, can you explain the claim that he is an ELDER with (only) 30 years experience in Aboriginal culture? That has been the major question for me since this discussion began. I know some Wurundjeri elders, in the Yarra Ranges area. All are at least in their 50s and older, obviously giving them more than 50 years such experience. It's hard to imagine a 30 year old "elder". HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

FFS, HiLo. We have access to an online encyclopaedia devoted to all sorts of stuff. Take it up with the people who wrote Australian Aboriginal elder not me. Geez.

An Elder (usually capitalised) of an Aboriginal Australian or Torres Strait Islander community has been defined as "someone who has gained recognition as a custodian of knowledge and lore, and who has permission to disclose knowledge and beliefs". They may be male or female, and of any age, but must be trusted and respected by their community for their wisdom, cultural knowledge and community service. Elders provide support for their communities in the form of guidance, counselling and knowledge, which help tackle problems of health, education, unemployment and racism, particularly for younger people.

Many communities have "elders" who are wise beyond their years and manage the group maintenance tasks associated with any community. When I first encountered a LDS elder who looked to be in his teens I treated him with respect, bowing and making the "wai" gesture and watching as he fled promptly discovered a previous engagement next door. With the two guys and the rainbow flag. --Pete (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

My question was completely polite. Your use of "FFS" is not. I asked about this particular person, who you claim to have heard a lot about. Your answer was extremely general, abusive, irrelevant (Mormonism?), and hence quite unhelpful. And please stop talking about ME! HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Your participation in this discussion about something you care enough to have edit-warred over is based on your erroneous assumption of what "elder" means within the Indigenous community. You repeated your grossly insensitive claim several times. I'm sorry if you think it's all about you. Realistically it's all about me, because I take particular relish in pointing out where someone has gone right off the rails. It is my moral failing not yours. Please forgive my onion sauce. --Pete (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop talking about me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you not understand the point being made? Edit-warring is disruptive but you did it based on a mistake you refuse to admit. As per our very own article on this precise topic, Aboriginal Elders may be any age. An Elder having 30 years of experience doesn't mean he is 30 years old, and even if he was, his title is based on service to his community as a recognised source of wisdom, lore, and fellowship. Are you sure you are here to improve the article? Don't answer this question. Just give it a rest, please. --Pete (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not edit war. I made no mistake. I pointed out that you breached WP:BRD. An elder is someone born Aboriginal. That means their experience begins at birth. 30 years is not credible. Now, please stop talking about me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Skyring: if he's so known, as you make him out to be — how about you create an article for him? everyone's a prolific commentator on Google, but this is Wikipedia and not everyone is notable by our standards. You're dismissing the Indigenous voices of many more people by providing a false equivalence to their views with the view of this one non-notable individual. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't give a false equivalence to diverse sources. That's not how Wikipedia works. Nor is everyone with a BLP article here a good source. We have many articles on football players, for example, but very few of them are used as sources. This guy is making public comments on his recognised special knowledge, being quoted in reliable sources, and if you want to attack his contributions, why not use some sort of Wikipolicy to do so? It's not as if we haven't debated and discussed and codified reliable sources since Wikipedia Day One. Make WP:RSN your friend. --Pete (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You should make WP:ONUS your friend, given you're not doing a stellar job of convincing people to include this disputed content. It is a false equivalence, or WP:FALSEBALANCE (yep, just click onto WP:NPOV policy you've suggested and scroll down to "Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance" and read it); the disputed content is regarding a claim and a quote by one person (as opposed to a plethora of coverage, already provided). I'm not attacking his contributions, so perhaps read what I'm saying properly: I have simply said that this person is not notable by Wikipedia standards (where's his article?), so I don't think his views should be added in to said article as if they're Gospel. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to at least delete the indigenous names from the infobox heading? GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Might be time for a straw poll. --Pete (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• There are many problems, interpretations, conflicts of sources, and controversies in Aboriginal names for current Australian cities. As the discussions in several articles have shown, Aboriginal names have been removed from the article's intro and infobox, for example: in Perth and now, in Sydney. Except for problems like: interpretations and conflicts of sources and other, as the example of Sydney has shown, areas of vast Australian cities were inhabited by various Aboriginal clans, so using one or two names of one/two clans of many for whole city violates NPOV rule. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It appears as though this debate will be repeated, on all the Australian place pages, one-by-one :( GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

not necessarily, I guess the disputes will be only about major Australian cities because:

1. aboriginal names are assumed to be questionable as there are no historical Aboriginal names for modern Australian cities. Their names are the names of geographical places, e.g. bays, lowlands, etc. The fact that many geographic areas have become part of the Australian metropolis does not mean that the city is to use these names simultaneously as name of city.
2. conflict of sources - there are other sources for that name (Narrm or Naarm), depicting as city center, the area of today's CBD, the bay, so selecting only those sources that describe the entire city is forbidden and violates the Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability
3. vast areas of modern large cities were inhabited by different clans using different names. Choosing only one name from one clan, and ignoring other clans, is against the Wikipedia:NPOV.

Therefore, as long as there are a few users who put questionable names into articles at all costs, we have a problem in Wikipedia and there will be many pages of discussion on this topic. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The intro

Isn't seven sources-in-a-row, overdoing it? GoodDay (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

yes, far too much exaggeration. Especially that the number of sources is not the problem here. If there are other sources for that name (Narrm or Naarm), depicting as city center, the area of today's CBD, the bay, etc., sources in ontro do not matter because there is a conflict of sources. Disputed Aborriginal names should be removed from the first sentence of article, as was the case with Perth and Sydney. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man Melbourne is a different case from Sydney or Perth. Naarm is widely acknowledged and citable as a name in modern-usage for the metropolitan area, which was not easily done for Sydney or Perth. I've explained to you many times a name can apply to more than one thing.

eg. Port_Phillip_(disambiguation)

Besides this, you have been suggesting this for a long time, if you have actionable steps feel free to present them. What defines contested? If there are 100 articles that say X is true and 1 article that says X is false what do we do? What about 10-1? 5-1? Why only remove from the first sentence of the article?

@GoodDay I agree 7 sources is a lot, but at the moment the citation of a large amount of evidence is where we've landed to hold off reverts. Poketama (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Cut it down to 'three' sources, if it's kept in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Multiref might be easiest to implement at the moment. Poketama (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If I knew how, I would. At the moment, the sourcing looks overdone & creates the appearance of insecurity, about the sentence-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

September edit warring

@Simulaun: is adding content that has been disputed in this talk page, skipping the part about gaining consensus. I've undone their edits and returned the article to its status-quo. Feel free to explain your edits here. Also, a side note, your content made use of content from here -- almost word for word. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The content in question has been discussed and there appears to be ample support on WP:Talk for its inclusion in the article. Furthermore, before reposting, I addressed the concerns raised by providing a broader perspective (from 'Lonelyplanet.com') and additional documentation of Ian Hunter's track record of involvement in Aboriginal culture (see below for more detail). So I am not sure why this information is being censored. Please specify/clarify what concerns remain unaddressed.

Previous concerns aired on WP:Talk:

Concern 1: The initial edit was considered on WP:Talk to 'probably be a good addition to the article, but it needs a source'. As stated in WP:Talk, the source is 3AW. Additional sources pertaining to the issue more generally, and the quoted individual, have now also been provided.

Concern 2: By quoting someone, it was alleged on WP:Talk that the initial entry amounted to a single point of view. As pointed out on WP:Talk, this is not a particularly valid criticism. Moreover, this has now been addressed by presenting the topic more broadly ("The introduction of indigenous names...", as stated in reference by lonelyplanet.com)

Concern 3; It was claimed that the quoted individual (Ian Hunter) is non-notable. Although this does not appear to be a valid or relevant criticism (e.g., not all quotes on WP need to be from well-known individuals), this concern has now been addressed by the addition of four additional references documenting significant exposure of this individual's views and activities on public news outlets.

Concern 4: It was claimed that the quoted individual cannot have been an 'elder' for 30 years. Although this criticism also appear to lack validity or relevance (e.g., there can be a degree of variation in how one interprets 'being an elder for 30 years'), this concern has also been addressed as the four additional references attest to broad-based recognition of the quoted individual's involvement in Aboriginal culture and their apparent credentials as an Aboriginal 'elder'

Simulaun (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Concern 1: an editor made that observation, we're all editors of equal standing. I'm just one editor who disagrees.

Concern 2: it's still quoting one person's view (3AW article), you've just conflated it (see original research) to be about every city, even though this Wikipedia article is about one city - Melbourne. The lonelyplanet source is discussing Sydney -- not Melbourne. In fact, the source even clarifies that a name change "doesn’t always represent the whole geographical footprint". "Doesn't always" = suggests that not all cities encounter this issue, and Melbourne could be one of them, but we don't know that seeing as the source does not reference Melbourne. Also, your copy-and-paste of content from the loneyplanet source, without proper attribution, is a copyright violation.

Concern 3: "Although this does not appear to be a valid or relevant criticism (e.g., not all quotes on WP need to be from well-known individuals)" - your opinion is not policy. Wikipedia policy can speak for itself, see WP:NOTWHOSWHO. I've brought up weight issues (specifically giving a false balance) that still stand (ie. if this person is so notable, why doesn't he have an article on Wikipedia?). Moreover, Wikipedia doesn't give undue weight to insignificant views; perhaps in passing, but a viewpoint and a quote? I don't think so.

Concern 4: I don't disagree nor agree. I would reiterate that if this person's decades of knowledge are notable, then perhaps it's time he had an article on Wikipedia. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Financial Centre quote in intro is wrong

Financial centre quote in trod is wrong - Sydney is 23rd, not Melbourne! Novel-firsts (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The reference for that claim was for GFCI edition 29 dated March 2021, in which Melbourne was indeed 23rd (Sydney was 18th). The latest edition of the GFCI (March 2022) has Melbourne at 32nd and Sydney at 23rd. So it was not a matter of Sydney and Melbourne being mixed up, it was correct at the time the sentence was updated. I have updated it to the latest ranking (which had been updated in the Economy section). --Canley (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Parcel delivered in different state

I ordered. Something on line in sept I live in nsw. Wagga Wagga The parcel got as far as Wagga east post office. It sat there way to long. I made an enquire. Went to post office they couldn’t find it. I made a complaint to australia post office on 23 sept A month later I get a message to say it was delivered. But in sunshine. Victoria. How the hell can such a mixup. Happen I have since complained to Australia post only to be ignored. No one is taking responsibility for. This mixup. Nor explaining to me how it can be just around the corner from me one day a month later. Hundreds of miles away. From me I want comprensation for this. Mess. I’ll never. Buy online again if I can’t get what I ordered 120.17.21.234 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Narrm

There is scant information regarding the meaning, origin, and use of the name Narrm. WP:Melbourne would be improved by defining the geographical area/boundaries of Narrm (instead of merely stating that it overlaps with the present-day CBD). It would also be useful to provide more tangible information regarding its past and present use. There is information (e.g., from Tourism Australia and (purported) Aboriginal Elder Ian Stuart that it is a newly introduced name for Melbourne. Either way, the current presentation of Narrm in WP:Melbourne appears to be lacking at several levels. I recommend major alterations of the present text aimed at providing relevant and appropriately sourced information in this regard. Simulaun (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

What information would you like to see? A definition, history, related terms and clarification of usage are all provided. Genuinely asking here. Also could you provide the Tourism Australia reference here, as I could find nothing when I googled about it. PS. It is not a requirement that Wikipedia give equal weight to every opinion. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. JTdale 🗩 09:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The present definition, history, and clarification of usage are severely lacking. For example, "the area on which the Melbourne city centre is built' provides no indication of the geographic area or size of Narrm. Also, the sentence 'The name Narrm is commonly used by the broader Aboriginal community...' appears to be opinion rather than factual or sourced information. Futhermore, the purported clarifaction of usage appears indicate that Narrm refers to (the) scrub that grew in the bay before it was flooded (so Narrm actually refers to Port Philip Bay?).

In light of these significant shortcomings, WP:Melbourne would be improved by:

(1) straightforward information regarding the geographic location of or the area represented by 'Narrm'

(2) clear information regarding how and when 'Narrm' became used as an Aboriginal name for Melbourne (as opposed to scrub in general and in various locations).

I have not been able to find any information regarding (1). Regarding (2), the following inclusion in WP:Melbourne seems appropriate and informative: Assigning an Aboriginal name to a city that did not exist prior to British colonization can mean that a name has to be chosen that doesn’t always represent the whole geographical footprint.https://www.lonelyplanet.com/news/australia-adopts-dual-names-for-cities-to-celebrate-aboriginal-heritage The Boonwurrung name ‘Narrm', which comprises (information for item (1), if/when available), is used for Melbourne. This could be complemented by information from 3AW/Ian Hunter that use of the name Narrm for Melbourne is a relatively recent phenomenon.https://www.3aw.com.au/the-problem-a-wurundjeri-elder-sees-with-plan-to-give-melbourne-suburbs-dual-names Simulaun (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Melbourne density.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)