This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Sydney was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Sydney is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.
Greater Sydney
The article could do with more detail and some corrections as to what makes up "Greater Sydney". The dimensions for Greater Sydney are given as 12,367km2, which looks correct. A more detailed reference source (with boundaries) than the Australian Bureau of Statistics table entry could help. This report has some rough information on the physical boundaries, but the details are probably somewhere on the Australian Bureau of Statistics site.
https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/guides/city-at-a-glance
The Geography section of the article incorrectly says that Greater Sydney stretches 88km north-south (Palm Beach to Waterfall) and 70km east-west (Bondi Beach to Emu Plains). That would give it a land area of only about 6,000km2. In fact Greater Sydney goes from the Central Coast to south of Wollongong, and as far as the Blue Mountains in the west, which leads to the 12,367km2 figure.
Personally, I hate the meaningless inclusion of the area of the ABS fiction that is the "Sydney GCCSA", and the even more meaningless population density figure given prominent place in this article. Mostly because this completely useless number gets quoted over and over again by media, academics who should know better, and the public, trying to compare it against urban density figures overseas. This is a problem with all Australian capital cities, fwiw. It's way past time we tried to come up with a more realistic/comparable definition, particularly for area and population density, for Sydney, as the ABS statistical unit of the GCCSA (and its predecessor unit also used in this article pre-2011) were never designed as geographical representations of Sydney. - ҉Randwicked҉06:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or, AT THE VERY LEAST (hear me out), the infoboxes used on every Australian capital city article should include the urban population density (from a reliable source) more prominently than the density of the ABS area. It would be better to have NO density figure rather than continue to include the completely misleading and useless density numbers for the GCCSAs, given their enormous size and inclusion of non-urban areas. ҉Randwicked҉06:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the map I made a while ago attempting to show the difference between the ABS units: the GCCSA, the SUA (possibly a better definition of Sydney for this article), and the various urban areas. Grey is the GCCSA boundary (the area and definition currently in this article), orange the boundary of the SUA, and the solid pink area the actual urban centre (as defined by the ABS). It's immediately evident how much non-urban land there is in the GCCSA, and why it's not appropriate for the article to use the area of the GCCSA to represent the area of Sydney, imo. - ҉Randwicked҉06:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the past the ABS has defined Greater Sydney as extending all the way north to the Swansea bridge (in Lake Macquarie, south of Newcastle) and inland several km south of Wollongong. I found one hamlet that was included in greater Syndey but was something like 145km from the CBD. I'm north of Newcastle, only 15km further away from that hamlet but I'm not in Greater Sydney. I don't think there is an actual definition of Greater Sydney but there is a verifiable list of the LGAs that comprise (lesser?) Sydney. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is 'Greater Sydney' presented as an alternative name for the city of Sydney in the lead?
Why is 'Greater Sydney' presented as equal to 'Eora' in the lead (maps of the two indicate major differences in terms of area(s) covered)? Simulaun (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sydney name
Aboriginal names describing a region are not applicable when used in conjunction with sydney, which is a city. A city is: "an inhabited place of greater size, population, or importance than a town or village." notice the definition changes due to the amount of infrastructure/buildings/population etc when compared to a village or town. A city is not defined by a region name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.1.85 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You must be new here - Wikipedia has guidelines which allow for Alternative Names with specific reference to 'historical names, and significant names in other languages', the guidelines do not differentiate article naming conventions in the way you suggest - while that may be a relevant definition outside of Wikipedia, a population definition does not apply here. The names you are referring to are correct within Wikipedia's guidelines, not only are they formatted correctly as per Wikipedia's guidelines (eg. in parenthesis, specifying the known & cited historical language and no more than two alternate names), they also present a Neutral Point of View and satisfy Verifiability as they are sourced correctly with historical and reliable sources (literally journal entries from historical explorers). The Alternative Names should not be removed as they are correctly used under Wikipedia's guidelines. Edit warring is however against the policies, please refrain from doing so as there are penalties as listed on the Edit warring policy page. GadigalGuy (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference for Gadi (number 5) is a special interests website and is clearly incorrect (it claims that Sydney was Gadi before it was called Sydney, with one of the main incompatibilities being that Sydney did not exist before it was called Sydney). The second reference does not mention 'Gadi'. Please provide appropriate references for the use of Gadi as an alternative name in full compliance with Wikipedia rules, or remove your entry of Gadi in the fist sentence of the lead. Simulaun (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The location that Sydney (city) and Greater Sydney now sits on has historical names which are still, today, used to refer to the exact same locations, people have lived on this exact same land regardless of when it was given the name 'Sydney', therefore they are valid Alternative (Historical) Names. It is a bit rich to call The Australian Museum a special interests website that is "clearly incorrect" about history when they are literally a leading national historical archive. The second reference also actually does mention Gadi in the physical book provided by the National Library of Australia. Please stop edit-warring to remove Indigenous place names.
Also I notice that your edit summaries have suggested that Gadi only refers to Watsons Bay, that shows a clear lack of understanding of the Dharug language. As such, I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify this: I am a Gadigal person, which in Dharug literally translates to 'Man of Gadi', Gadi being the place. I am from Gadi, however I am not from Watsons Bay because Gadigal Country (Gadi) is significantly larger than a landmark. Gadi comprises of the majority of the 'Sydney' inner-east, including the geographical centre of 'Sydney', hence why Sydney is also known as Gadi. GadigalGuy (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify the following:
Gadi versus Cadi (as on my map of Eora, Gadi=Watsons Bay)
If Gadi comprises the majority of Sydney inner-east, then how can it also equate to the remainder of the Sydney area?
Gadi vs Cadi is just a language interpretation thing due to transcribing a foreign language into English based on the sounds. Kind of like if you heard a French person saying 'Kwa-son' and tried to write it down based on what you heard, to a foreigner it would then be spelt 'Kwa-son', to a local it's spelt 'Croissant'. My fam and people we know have always used a G 'Ga' sound, not a C 'Ka', I actually don't remember ever hearing anyone use a C sound but obviously some people do.
As mentioned with the Dharug language, and I'll expand on the previous comment, -gal means 'man of' so Gadigal is Man of Gadi, Burramattagal is Man of Burramatta (Parramatta) and so on - it's referring to a country not a landmark. So there's no if it comprises of the majority of the inner-east, it does - otherwise I wouldn't be Gadigal, I would be something else.
Sydney in English doesn't even technically refer to the remainder of the Sydney area, that's what Greater Sydney (Eora) is for. The city (centred on the CBD) is called Sydney, which is part of the area known as Gadi. You can even drive down some main roads in Sydney which say 'Sydney x km' while still in the suburbs for example, which is obviously within the remainder of the Sydney area so Sydney doesn't refer to the remainder, the area those signs refer to is part of Gadi.
Even members of the First Fleet acknowledged and recorded it being called Gadi... but also, it's clear you're trying to angle your argument based on semantics, both that Sydney refers to the commune established by the Europeans in 1788 and not the area/location (as though my ancestors were not part of a community in the exact same location), while you also try to argue that it is the whole area/location outside of Gadigal Country in the sentence immediately preceding - Keep in mind, that broader area was not colonised immediately, and also was not part of the 1788 establishment, and as suburbia expanded still was not called Sydney even by the Europeans, the locations were given different names, for example Parramatta (derived from the Indigenous Burramatta).GadigalGuy (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most if not all of what you state appears to be incorrect.
I have maps and documents pertaining to Eora generated by First Nations people that show and explain that Gadi=Watsons Bay and not Cadi (so this can be considered to be a documented fact promoted by First Nation peoples/Cadigal rather than (mis)interpretation from translation into English, as you asserted).
Your statement that "the city (centered on the CBD) is called Sydney, which is part of the area known as Gadi" is at odds with your claim that this is/was "...the exact same location" (i.e., logic dictates that "part of" and "the exact same" are not the same).
You further claim that "...that broader area...still was not called Sydney", yet the first paragraph of the article states that "..Sydney is made up of 658 suburbs, spread across 33 local government areas". Simulaun (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simulaun, I'm rather skeptical of your ability to locate and interpret reliable sources after your repeated attempts to insert the following text into this article:
In recent years, some groups have taken to referring to the Sydney conurbation as "Gadi", although this is a geographical location presently known as 'Watson Cove'.
I tagged these as weasel words ("In recent years", "some groups") and the claim that Gadi meant "Watson Cove" as [citation needed]. You then added some references: an article in The Guardian (that didn't mention Sydney at all) for the "recent years" claim, links to Network Ten and FIFA mentioning "Gadi" as the "some groups" claim, and no reference for the Watson Cove claim. I reverted your removal of the tags and gave you a week to find better references, which never appeared so I removed the sentence. I also figured if you did actually find a verifiable reference that Watsons Bay was called Gadi/Cadi/Kutti or some variation (like this one), that it would not actually confirm that this meant only Watsons Bay/Cove and no other location had or could possibly have the same name. Now you claim that your "maps and documents" do exactly this, and we're supposed to take your word for it? As referenced in the article Cadigal, Arthur Phillip in his letters to Lord Sydney said the following:[1]
From the entrance of the harbour, along the south shore, to the cove adjoining this settlement the district is called Cadi, and the tribe Cadigal ; the women, Cadigalleon.
That's the whole area from Watsons Bay to Darling Harbour. Looks like your "recent years" go back to 1790 and the "some groups" include Governor Arthur Phillip. --Canley (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that, like the Wikipedia page in question, I am referring to 'Gadi' (first letter "G", as in 'golf'). You, on the other hand are appear to be referring to 'Cadi' (first letter "C", as in 'Charlie'). Simulaun (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the sentence by Arthur Philip that you quoted contradicts your conclusion, as Philip clearly distinguished between Sydney ('this settlement') and the district called Cadi. Simulaun (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gadi and Cadi refer to the exact same country and everything I have said about my country is correct. As a Gadigal person, I can assure you I know my own mob and where I'm from better than a bunch of people who don't even have oral knowledge from elders, both in the basics of Dharug language but also our oral history.GadigalGuy (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, Simulaun, you know why Phillip calls it 'this settlement' don't you? Because the settlement didn't have the name Sydney then! Phillip named the inlet "Sydney Cove" after Lord Sydney in 1788, but the name wasn't applied to the settlement until later. (Oh goodness me, a place with the same name as a body of water? That's not possible!) So the settlement at Port Jackson had no "official" name, and was completely within what Phillip acknowledged as a district called Cadi (which is the same thing as Gadi but spelled differently, I can't believe you need this explained to you). --Canley (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the link you refer to appears to contradict your conclusion. The name 'Sydney' was assigned to the Colony/Settlement (not the Cadi district) on 7 February of 1788 (as stated in the Sydney Wikipedia page). Contrary to your assertion, however, your link to the historical records of New South Wales appears to show that on 13 February of 1790 (i.e. two years after it had been named 'Sydney') Phillip still referred to the Colony/Settlement as being distinct from the adjacent 'district called Cadi'.
Secondly, while there is much hearsay about 'Cadi' and 'Gadi' (and even 'Kuttie'), the available physical documentation of the Eora region indicates that 'Cadi' is quite distinct, both conceptually and geographically (as well as in terms of the first letter), from 'Gadi'.
Lastly, you are incorrect in saying that the place 'Sydney' has the same name as the body of water called 'Sydney Cove' as the latter name contains an additional word ('Cove') to indicate that it is a separate entity (and name). Simulaun (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're wrong. The "proclamation and naming of the colony" on 7 February 1788 (mentioned in the Sydney article) was not 'Sydney' at all, it was the Colony of New South Wales (7 Feb 1788 - Colony of NSW formally proclaimed). What "physical documentation"? Is this the map you claim to have that no-one has seen? That's hearsay if anything is! And the settlement that became Sydney was completely within the Cadi district, from Watson's Bay to "the cove adjourning this settlement" (Darling Harbour) – the adjourning settlement was east of the cove and completely within that district. --Canley (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an academic article which contains a 1792 map titled "Survey of the Settlement of New South Wales, New Holland" – other than the label of Sydney Cove, there is no mention of Sydney as the name of the settlement... four years after the arrival of the First Fleet. --Canley (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A 1920 journal from the Royal Australian Historical Society by Maybanke Anderson: "Sydney, as we know, was never formally named, and many other less important places received a name as whim or accident arranged. Uncertainty as to the name of the city on Port Jackson must have continued for many years, for in Wells' Geographical Dictionary of 1848, Sydney is entered as Sydney (or Albion)." Phillip seems to have written the origin of at least one of his letters to Lord Grenville as "Sydney" in around mid-1790, after consistently using "Sydney Cove" earlier, although according to Anderson: "Phillip’s despatch of June 20, 1790, was addressed from “Sydney,” though his previous despatches had been from “Sydney Cove.” (The word “Cove” might have been accidentally omitted from the former.)" --Canley (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So ample mention of 'Sydney' (and other non-aboriginal names) by its first inhabitants, while 'Gadi' is described as being something different and/or separate. Simulaun (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I entered template of 'Dubious span' to first sentence, after changes by some Aboriginal activists. After previous changes, in first sentence there are two Aboriginal names.
The first sentence of an article about a very important city in the world is not a place to list a few additional names used by the margins of society. If there are multiple names, move them to the History or Ethymology section.
There are also doubts about the use of the name of Eora (presumably for Greater Sydney), this name is a modern name, and this is not the place to use the names of a modern name by the margin of society, in the first sentence of an important article.
There are also doubts about the use of the two names to one things. Article is about Greater Sydney, if name of Eora is for Greater Sydney, we should only leave this one name. Name of 'Gabi" is name for "Sydney" but Sydney is a wildcard word. There is no doubt here. Aboriginal name must to be to the Greater Sydney and must comply with the article (article is about Greater Sydney). There are sources, where name of 'Gabi" is determined for City of Sydney. Such calcification and problems practically exclude the use of this name in the first sentence of the article of Greater Sydney, because it is a debatable issue.
Summary: I see a few problems with the editing by Aboriginal activists. These problems are so serious that I believe these two names should be moved to a different section. The first sentence is no place for controversial names. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)08:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second case: there was a manipulation and violation of the principle of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by some users. If there are 20 sources: 10 sources who showing "Gabi" as area / region and 10 sources who showing "Gabi" as a city (City of Sydney or CBD), you are not allowed to choose just some sources that are in line with your point of view and you are not allowed to enter name of "Gabi" only as a Greater Sydney (in intro or/and infobox) relying only on the sources you choose, which are in line with your opinion. This is breach fundamental rules of Wikipedia, i.e. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If there are different sources, and only some of them describe the name "Gabi" as the Greater Sydney (Greater Capital City Statistical Area), it is too controversial and obscure to use the name in the intro or / and infobox in the article of the Greater Sydney. Intro or infobox is not a place for controversial and debatable things. The Etymology or History sections may be used to describe this name. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)08:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit hypocritical to call others "activists" when it seems to be only you and Simulaun who seem unable to accept any Indigenous Australian name for a city, that seems more like activism to me. At least you have about half your edits about other topics, Simulaun does nothing else. Your "if there are 20 sources" argument makes no sense: the name "Sydney" can refer to any number of different geographical entities, but the name "Gadi" cannot it can only be a city or a region but cannot be both, according to you it can only mean the "Sydney Greater Capital City Statistical Area" and if it doesn't, it cannot appear in the lede despite WP:ALTNAME and WP:NCPLACE being really clear that this completely acceptable. --Canley (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Canley:, please quote the rules that you can use some of the sources that describe the name without the rest of the sources showing the name for another thing. There are many sources who name of "Gadi" link to Sydney CBD or/and City of Sydney. This is article about Greater Sydney. Sources indicate a serious problem. WP:ALTNAME/WP:NCPLACE does not take such cases. This is breach fundamental rules of Wikipedia, i.e. Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. If there are different sources, and only some of them describe the name "Gabi" as the Greater Sydney, other sources show as City of Sydney or/and Sydney CBD, the problem should be describe in the article in the section. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)10:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seasider53: - your edit is typical vandalism[2]. You can have your own opinion, but you have removed a correctly inserted template. There are guidelines that say that the template can only be removed after removing problems from the article. Your actions are destructive, breaking the rules of Wikipedia. Please withdraw your change. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)10:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Subtropical-man: Let's not give people vandalism warnings on their talk page unnecessarily. It can be seen as attempting to suppress people into allowing your edit-warring to occur. I'm not the one who appears to be in danger of being blocked. Seasider53 (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seasider53: - You can have your own opinion, but you have removed a correctly inserted template. There are guidelines that say that the template can only be removed after removing problems from the article. Your actions are destructive, breaking the rules of Wikipedia. Again, please withdraw your change. If you don't do this within 4 next hours, I'll use the {POV} template in the article. At the moment, the article's intro breaks the POV rule. If there are different sources, and only some of them describe the name "Gabi" as the Greater Sydney, other sources show as City of Sydney or/and Sydney CBD, the problem should be describe in the article in the section without controversial entries in the first sentence of the article. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)10:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the 4 hours thing part of the template guidelines that are being invented? Just checking if I can ignore it more quickly. Seasider53 (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seasider53, you can ignore it. Someone else can restore the template - the lesser evil. If not, in 4 hours I will insert the {POV} template into the article - and I have the right to do so. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is Wikipedia:Core content policies, who say: (...) "are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus". The article (including the intro) must meet these WP:NPOV rules, your opinion is not important here. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)10:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it's Gadi, not Gabi. We've been over that many times before Subtropical-man. This article is 'Sydney', it appears to be a broad, generalised article on the metropolis that encompasses Sydney and Sydney - given that it quite literally says that. That metropolis depending on context can be accurately referred to as Sydney or Greater Sydney interchangeably, that's to say: Greater Sydney and Sydney are synonymous with one-another, this is not an article specifically for some specific variation of a name, therefore it is appropriate to provide both Indigenous names for Sydney and Greater Sydney in this article, no other article is appropriate for this specific context.
I am still waiting for an explanation as to why @Canley: and @Seasider53: removed correctly inserted template from article despite there being a few problems. Apart from personal attacks, they did not provide any arguments. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)10:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did give an argument (and an edit comment, and many more above, and on the many talk pages on which you are also disputing these issues) but you ignored it. It's completely over-egging it to insist that your opinions are backed up by core content policies like WP:NPOV – this is a accuracy dispute, not a clear violation of any policy. The name has been there for two years, with a small number of editors insisting on removing it recently, and responding to every single opposing comment or argument – no-one (else) is confused, no-one is being misled, it's not an issue of bias or activism or vandalism – it's a concise and relevant piece of information, completely acceptable under the rules I mentioned earlier. Of course you can add templates, but I am also allowed to remove them if I have verified that the issues on the talk page have been addressed or are not substantive. I just don't see the point in raising another discussion when it's been discussed so often and so recently. I mean knock yourself out, add the POV template, but your opinions do not mean these templates are inviolable until your apparent desired goal of removing traditional names is achieved. I have to say, I am a little confused by your arguments: you state yourself that there are references that Gadi can refer to the Sydney CBD, the City of Sydney, or the Greater Sydney area, which would seem in aggregate to be sufficient to most, but because there is no single reference that it does and can mean all those things it's not neutral? And "used by the margins of society", yuck. And you keep saying "Gabi" not "Gadi", please, for someone supposedly concerned about accuracy... --Canley (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Canley: Most of your comments on this matter are personal attacks. Please stop writing about my person and my alleged purpose. My goal is not to remove Aboriginal names from article as such, but only names that are highly questionable and only from first sentence of article. There are too many issues for the name of "Gadi" in the first sentence of this article. To describe the problem you used the word "accuracy". No, accuracy is not the problem here. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and sub-pages describe what to do when there are conflicting sources. Also please read: Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality. All versions (Greater Sydney, City of Sydney, Sydney CBD, other places) that have been supported by sources should be used, not just those advocating for aboriginal names to be included in Greater Sydney article. If a given name is controversial because it refers to many different things, it shouldn't be in the first sentence. My use of the template was correct and fully compliant with Wikipedia standards. The given sources are questioned and require more explanation in the article. At the moment, the use of several (chosen by one side!) sources describing the name as (Greater) Sydney is breaking the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, because it only shows one version of several. I am not interested in how many discussions there have been, you have a duty to act according to Wikipedia rules. You can't - then go away. You don't want to solve problems but sweep them under the rug - go away. As a reminder of permissions, you are required not only not to break the rules, but to respect and defend Wikipedia's rules. Your comments using personal attacks are unacceptable. But your destructive editing even more so. Even your opinion of "accuracy" does not solve the problem, and you have deleted the correctly inserted template?!? Even if you name it differently, the problem exists. I know you want peace of mind, you don't have to be here. The problem exists and must be removed from this article. You wasted a lot of time writing about me and did not give any arguments or ideas. Only what you did creatively - you used a different name for the problem. Before I put the {POV} template into the article, I hope there are some ideas or willingness to solve the sources' problem. My idea is: transfer information to Etymology or History section, use other sources according to NPOV (for City of Sydney, Sydney CBD and other places). This is a compromise: there will be no controversial and debatable names in the first sentence of the article but in the main article there will be exact information about this, even a paragraph about it. I think it's a good compromise and 100% in line with Wikipedia rules. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)13:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not personal attacks, it's writing (yes, perhaps critically) about your edits and comments, your pattern of editing, your calling other editors vandals, activists, destructive and non-neutral for disagreeing with your opinions or reverting your edits, and claiming a moral high ground as if "the rules" support your position alone. Apologies if I've misconstrued your motive, but how have I broken any rules? – I guess you think personal attacks but I can't see how I've not "commented on the content, not the contributor" or anything listed at WP:WIAPA. --Canley (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Canley: Again, again, again. I am quoting: "about your edits and comments, your pattern of editing, your calling other editors vandals, activists, destructive and non-neutral for disagreeing with your opinions" etc. Dear Canley. You have no right to judge my opinions or edits if they do not violate Wikipedia rules. Do not write nonsense like "non-neutral for disagreeing with your opinions" because the same can be written about you and any other user with a different opinion. I have not called anyone a vandal - next your lie. The only thing I did wrong is I used the word "activists". The rest of your text is lies, slanders and manipulations. About you and yours behaving too, we can write a whole eleborat, also we can use manipulation, speculations and lies like you. Besides, this is not a place to write elaborates about another user - so, please stop writting about me in this discuss because this is article talk page. You write about me in practically all your comments. This is typycal Wikipedia:Harassment, please stop it now! If you have any suggestions about my behavior, please write in my user talk page. Let's go back to the discussion about the article here. Subtropical-man(✉ | en-2)14:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citations provided in the article (#6 and 7) are woefully inadequate to support the contention that Sydney used to be called Gadi.
If information is to be displayed in the first sentence or lead, it needs to be correct and verifiable. Neither of these criteria apply to 'Gadi'. Unless this purported 'alternative name' can be substantiated by credible sources, it warrants being moved to a footnote or deleted altogether. Simulaun (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simulaun, you literally just tried to use a wordpress blog as a source. 6 & 7 are literally the Australian Museum, ie. the peak national organisation for historical archives, and a journal article from the First Fleet, held by the National Library of Australia, ie. the peak national organisation for recorded literature. It doesn’t get much more credible than that. Is this some kind of trolling joke? GadigalGuy (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to get any relevant information from citation 7 other that it is a book available (but apparently not online) at the National Library of Australia. I am, however, amenable to perusing the relevant pages in this book if you/someone would let me know how to access this item online. Nonetheless, in my opinion, the apparent unavailability online of the book/pages in question makes it quite unsuitable as a citation for such a contentious claim that really warrants a significant degree of scrutiny by a diversity of WP users.
Citation #6 is particularly/woefully lacking in my opinion. The first sentence is 'Sydney is built upon some of the oldest occupied territory in the world'. As Homo sapiens has occupied the Middle East and NE Africa for approximately 150,000 and 300,000 years, respectively, this first sentence strikes me as profoundly incorrect. The second sentence appears equally ill considered: 'Before it was named Sydney it was called Gadi'. While there is some ambiguity in how this should be interpreted (e.g., Sydney was called Gadi before it was called Sydney, or the '(not) some of the oldest occupied territory in the world was called Gadi before it was called Sydney'). Either interpretation is reason to believe that this is profoundly unreliable information (despite the Australian Museum origin). Further, as no substantiating evidence or documentation is provided, this citation, which is perhaps little more than opinion or fantasy, strikes me as entirely unsuitable for the purpose it is being used for on the Sydney WP page. Simulaun (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a problem with this particular topic. The best sources, by their very nature, are not likely to be online. In fact, recent online sources are unreliable in that we have to ask, just where did they get this information from? The name of a place isn't like its height or its latitude or longitude or climate. We can't just go and check for ourselves what the name was centuries ago. We must depend upon the records available. The best we can hope for is that someone who understood the local language wrote it down and left notes explaining why it referred to that specific place and was actually the name, rather than words meaning (say) "Ah, that's a big rock, idiot tourist." A map drawn by an early explorer showing the course of a river or the outline of a bay or cape with the local name is very helpful.
What would have been perfect is to have had the locals draw maps or have a body of literature listing place names but they didn't swing that way so we have to solve the puzzle ourselves, and as I keep on poining out we must do it through the lens of British colonialists who often had scant regard for the quaint languages and culture of the locals who had been around for thousands of years and presumably had names for the places that the new arrivals called "Frank's Head" or "Scrubby Creek".
Having a linguist interpret names would also be handy. The earliest British people drawing maps and describing the land tended to be military officers. Great at navigation, not so great at languages. "What's this river called?" "Deep water." "What about this other river?" "Deep water." "Good, what about this bay?" "Really deep water." So when we see an Indigenous river name meaning "deep water" was that really its name or just the local equivalent of "Rocky Knoll" or "Snowy Mountains", the sort of names the early mapmakers sprinkled the landscape with? All very confusing, really, and I do wonder about the trust some people place in a webpage put up by the town council or whatever. --Pete (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts to include names disregarding discussion & policies
I'm not much interested in reading the discussion above but please refrain from making edits pertaining to the issue while there is an ongoing discussion.
I will note that, as far as I can see, none of these names for Sydney are common and hence should not be used in infoboxes nor bolded which goes against MOS:BOLDLEAD. Names ought only to be in bold if they are "formal or widely accepted". They are already included in the first sentence in proper formatting, alongside their language group and italicised. WP:Activist – which I was not aware of until today – may also warrant consideration here. I apologise as I am likely raising points that have already been considered in the above discussion but I wish to express them should they have been disregarded as I find the above discussion somewhat confronting in its size. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument hinges on the interpretation of the word 'significant' in MOS:BOLDALTNAMES which is a whole can of worms. But yeah fair enough the discussion hasn't been formally closed yet. Poketama (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mistakenly reverted a reversion by another editor thinking the initial reversion was an addition, so I was fairly misguided when I made that initial statement about adding names before the conclusion of the discussion I’m afraid. thorpewilliam (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pissing on the treeWhat is significant to an activist - and Poketama's SPA campaign has been the subject of criticism elsewhere - is not necessarily notable in the wider world. My rule of thumb is that Indigenous place names, well-sourced and researched, are most welcome in the history section of an article, but are of limited importance elsewhere. By and large we do not give much prominence to previous spellings or names in the lede. New York City's previous name of New Amsterdam gets a mention in the third paragraph. Canberra's previous name of Limestone Plains is in the history section. Darwin's old name of Palmerston is mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the lede.
Activism is what is happening here and it is not a useful strategy for building an encyclopaedia. I have seen previous campaigns where some municipality or organisation wishes to increase its presence on the net and inserts as many references as possible into Wikipedia articles, all linking back to the target, and providing bucketloads of high-value links for pageranking. Gibraltar made a solid effort as did some northern English city. One or two accounts would beaver away at boosting their stature until someone noticed and shut them down.
The problem is that this sort of thing reduces the visibility of what is actually useful and notable. Our users aren't likely to look up an Australian place to find out the Indigenous name - something of no practical use in buying train tickets or finding the rainfall for July or whatever - and giving such names prominence is WP:UNDUE, especially if a user is using a smaller device, relying on Google to give a one-paragraph overview, or having Siri/Alexa/HAL read out the first sentence.
I see this sort of thing as akin to tourists putting stickers on information signs when they travel. It may be significant to them to whack a colourful Barrow-in-Furness decal on a landmark sign, but for everyone else it's just noise. --Pete (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t say I’ve ever used Wikipedia to buy train tickets or finding the rainfall for July, Pete. We all use encyclopaedias for different reasons - my reason is to learn about a topic, and for places that specifically means I want to know if it has historical or alternate names, I want to know the culture, the demographics, why the place is what it is. If I look up a New Zealand article, I’ll specifically be thinking ‘I wonder what the Te Reo name is’ and if it is in the parenthesis as per the guidelines, I can see it easily. It might not increase your engagement, but it increases my engagement and I’d be willing to bet that both sides of the coin are the same for pretty much everyone - because some people want to know about certain things, and others don’t.
Regarding GoodDay’s comment, there is nothing out of the ordinary for non-english alternate names to be in the English Wikipedia, they’re literally everywhere, it has been normal and common for as long as I can remember - and I’ve been geeking out on random corners of Wikipedia for many years. If anything it’s the opposite scenario, it is unusual that there is such a pushback from a small number of editors when this sort of debate seems unthinkable in other areas of the English Wikipedia. GadigalGuy (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point, GadigalGuy. I'm not saying an Indigenous name isn't imnportant and I think it is a must to include in the history section if we can find one that is authentic and well-sourced. But there is a big difference between important and useful. Do you really think anyone uses Wikipedia to buy a train ticket? How odd, if so. But I can pretty much guarantee that nobody buys a train ticket to Bungambrewatha so I wonder about your idea of what the average user of Wikipedia goes looking for. What informs your opinion? Perhaps you have some research on Wikipedia users you could share with us?
I don’t think people use Wikipedia to buy train tickets, but apparently you do… But maybe people do look up train ticket companies in specific locations. Who knows! Which is exactly my point, and kinda the point you just made (ironically) - neither you, nor I, know what people use Wikipedia for, we all use it for a variety of reasons, so you can’t justify that ‘people aren’t likely to look it up’ as you said. My idea of what the average user goes looking for is as I said above, some people use it to look up certain things, and others use it for the complete opposite reason, or no reason at all. My use includes the occasional thought of ‘what is the name of xyz’, and I’m certain I’m not the only one because it’s not some obscure wacky thought - and when I think about that, I absolutely appreciate the fact that Wikipedia has a guideline for alternative and historical names in parenthesis because it saves me time, I find the information I want, and I’m happy. I actually don’t think that the Indigenous names ‘should be such a priority’ above all else - if they are dual names, absolutely include them as they should be; if they are sourced alternate historic names, include them as per the guidelines in parenthesis because two to four words is hardly going to ruin an article; and if they have more of a story to tell, chuck ‘em in the etymology section, but they may not have much of a story to tell to justify an entire paragraph when a couple of words in parenthesis does the same job. WP:NPOV requires a range of information, and really I don’t think that an encyclopaedia can have too much information just by adding two to four extra words in the first sentence of an entire article, especially when they provide a huge amount of information in such a small space. GadigalGuy (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading what I said about train tickets again. You are dead wrong. I shouldn't have to explain how to comprehend a simple English statement; that's what you are supposed to learn in primary school. If you don't understand how NPOV works, go look it up. Likewise WP:UNDUE. You are pushing a barrow that is not supported by policy or research, and you are being disruptive. --Pete (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, there is no need to be condescending and just pain rude. I don’t know if you had a tough day or whatever, but taking it out on me is a bit shamejob mate. GadigalGuy (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My position on this issue is that first Australian names are welcome in the history section of an article where well sourced. However, not at the beginning of the lead, except where that name has become commonly used in Australia. So Uluru is perfectly acceptable in the first sentence of the lead of the relevant article but in the case of Sydney, a place that did not even exist before 1788 there is no first nations name that is or can be applicable. Sure, there may well have been place names for areas within the current entity of Sydney, but none of those can be reasonably applied to Sydney as a whole. - Nick Thornetalk01:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with you isn't 'disruptive', mate. Quit calling other editors 'activists' and barrow pushers. You were told to knock it off last month when you were harrassing User:Poketama on the noticeboard. At my count that's at least two different indigenous editors you've targeted with policy acronyms at now in an apparent attempt to intimidate them away from editing. No-one has to prove fidelity to your highly subjective interpretation of wikipedia polcies to participate here. I'm concerned you're verging close to WP:HOUNDING behaviour. - ҉Randwicked҉06:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gadi and Eora
I am aware of the continuing discussion on this issue, but I have removed the statement that the Dharug word for Greater Sydney was Eora because the source does not support the content. WP:BURDEN. The source was incorrectly identified. It’s actually a post on the website of the historian Keith Vincent Smith.https://www.eorapeople.com.au/2020/06/ Smith states that the local Indigenous people called themselves Eora, meaning “people”. He doesn’t say that Eora was a Dharug word for Greater Sydney. Attenbrow (Sydney’s Aboriginal Past, 2010, p. 24) states that “The word Eora was given…by several colonists as the word for people, but is nowhere given as the name of a ‘tribe’ or a place.”
The statement that the Dharug word for Sydney was Gadi (Cadi) is also contradicted by the best sources. The current sources include a blog page on the Australian Museum website. It is not written by someone with a relevant qualification and does not give references.[3] Attenbrow, in contrast, is a highly respected anthropologist and her book is published by the University of NSW Press. WP:SOURCE. She shows that Cadi was the name of the territory of the Cadigal clan which was on the southern side of Port Jackson and ran from South Head to Darling Harbour (Attenbrow, 2010, p. 24). The other cited source is Tench who actually wrote: "The tribes derive the appellations from the places they inhabit: thus Càmeeragal, means the men who reside in the bay of Cameera; Càdigal, those who reside in the bay of Cadi; and so of the others." Although the original British settlement was on Cadigal land, that land did not correspond to the area of settlement and Cadi was not an Indigenous name for Sydney, then or ever. Some might consider it insulting to the Cadigal to suggest that it was.
It's also not clear why the Cadigal word for their territory should be privileged over the names of the territories of the other 28 or so clans who inhabited the Sydney area. Attenbrow gives the names and approximate range of these territories where known.
I have no problem with articles giving the Indigenous names for particular places where those names are relevant and well documented in reliable sources. I suggest that we remove the incorrect statement that these Indigenous words were names for Sydney and expand the section on the First Inhabitants of the Region in order to give a summary of the clans, their known territories, and their names for these territories. This would be much more valuable for casual readers. If others agree with this approach I would be happy to work with them to develop the article.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aemilius, I’m not responding to the article content, but I’d like to respond to your understanding specifically on the topic as written above - I am a Gadigal person with a pretty good understanding of the Dharug language considering my family ties, oral knowledge from elders and also having majored on Indigenous Studies with a specific focus on my own culture - The Dharug language and our culture have a very tight link between people and place, we are one and the same, spiritually linked. It’s probably a foreign concept to western perspectives, but it is a well documented thing across many Indigenous cultures in Australia. The word Eora literally translates to ‘people’ and ‘place’, it can’t mean one and not the other for us, it just doesn’t work that way, just like the word Gadigal literally refers to my mob/people and our place, we are the men of Gadi. As a Gadigal person, I can assure you, I am not insulted by seeing our places recognised, in fact it’s the opposite, the names being there for a couple of years has been nice to see. I’m more insulted when non-Gadigal people decide that my mob might be insulted and also when people consistently use past tense referring to us and our cultures, we still exist and I still ‘inhabit’ Gadi after all. If this were an article on Parramatta and not Sydney, I would agree that Gadi was out of place, however this is the Sydney article, which at least to me looks like it is the only article where Gadi would be relevant in this context, same too for Eora, as Greater Sydney also redirects here. It’s only recently been a hot topic after a very small number of users decided to jump on and delete the Indigenous names from anywhere they could find out of nowhere. I might be biased but I doubt the Australian Museum and National Library of Australia are, keeping accurate records is their job after all, so I trust them as valid sources - and in this case, they both match what I know from elders and my degree which adds in the reliability factor to make up a sound conclusion. GadigalGuy (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My intention isn’t to remove Gadi from the article, but to add all the relevant Indigenous names whenever they are well attested in the most reliable sources and unlikely to be successfully challenged. There are many highly reliable sources which show that other clans in the Sydney area had other names for their territories and none of them fully equate to Sydney, however defined. You mention Parramatta, which I assume you agree is part of the Sydney metropolis. The Sydney metropolis now covers the land of about 29 clans. Only including the Gadigal word in the lead might be seen as presumptuous. My intention is to move the word Cadi from the lead and place it in an expanded section on the First Inhabitants of the Region in order to give a summary of the clans of Sydney, their known territories, and their names for these territories. This is in line with WP:OTHERNAMES which states. “If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended.” Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting the Indigenous Education Project Officer of the Australian Museum doesn't have the qualifications to comment on what the indigenous name of Sydney is? Why do you assert this? - ҉Randwicked҉07:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not assert this. I linked to the relevant policy and assumed people would read it and interpret my comments on the relative reliability of the sources in that context. To be specific, policy states that the author’s reputation and qualifications are relevant to reliability; that blogs might not be subject to an organisation’s usual fact checking processes; and that, “If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science.” The current source is a blog page without references written by a person whose qualification is a Bachelor of Science in Biology. In contrast, Attenbrow is a highly respected archaeologist/anthropologist with decades of research experience in Indigenous history and culture, her book is fully referenced and is published by the University of NSW Press which has very high standards of peer review. I wasn't trying to impugn anyone and I apologise if my summary came across that way. Do you have an opinion on the merits of my proposal? I was considering creating a RfC but I wanted to see if we could reach an informal consensus first. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My position is clear. I'm a strong supporter of well attested indigenous names in prominent places in Australian articles, and I think that an article written by an officer (who is Aboriginal, no less) of one of the city's preeminent cultural institutions is good attestation to Gadi being an recognised name for Sydney. For this opinion, I've been insinuated to be an 'activist editor' by User:Simulaun, who has not contributed anything to this encyclopedia besides their persistent attempts to erase Aboriginal names from articles, and abused as 'woke' by User:Skyring, who should know better. I'm neither, and the abuse coming from that side is souring me on contributing to this project in general, but if you're asking in good faith then I'm willing to give input in good faith. If rigorous, reliable sources are important, I point to the NSW Place Names Register, as a source for officially gazetted dual names that should all be given prominence in this encyclopedia without delay. https://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/place_naming/place_name_search - ҉Randwicked҉12:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking to the NSW names register. I did a search for Cadi and Gadi and all I found were a few Cadi/Cadigal Parks and Reserves. Can you show me where it says that Cadi is an official dual name for Sydney? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, hence the use of other reliable sources, like the Australian Museum. The point is, there is a lot of under-representation of already officially dual-named features in this encyclopedia. It's real curious that so much effort is being extended by a few editors to remove names from articles, when there is already such a paucity of them here. That's my contribution to your proposal. A lot more effort needs to be taking place to INCLUDE indigenous names in Wikipedia, and a lot less effort expended excluding them. Some editors, though, don't seem to be here to do anything BUT that. Weird! - ҉Randwicked҉12:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the type of solid research we should be doing. Just because someone on a website somewhere says the name for a place is xxx doesn't make it so. We can do better than that for a topic so important to identity and history, especially if Wikipedia gets used as some sort of authority. See my draft essay here. --Pete (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too weary of these types of discussions (blame it on the old diacritics wars), concerning non-english names. Moving on. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Poketama: There is an ongoing discussion on this issue. Please don't insert content when the source you cite contradicts this content. Please don't cite entire books, cite the relevant pages. Given that I have cited relevant policy and reliable sources for my position, please provide the direct quote from your sources which supports your content and explain why you think the sources I cited are not reliable. Let's keep this discussion to policy and reliable sources, and refrain from altering content on this disputed issue without an explanation and discussion.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New montage looks great.
I'm glad we've come to our senses re: montages. Just having the Sydney Opera House and Harbour Bridge as the lede image made it seem as though the article was just about those two things. Anyway, it looks great...elegant, neat, organised. 04:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashton 29 (talk • contribs)
Ashton, thank you to drawing my attention to this recent change to montage. We all know there was a long drawn out debate last year that included outside assistance. You'll recall that Option 2 (single image) was settled upon as the outcome.
I'm not familiar with all the details of RfC rules, but that RfC discussion was from May 2020 and only included a moratorium on changes and discussion for one year. As it's been two years I think changes and discussion are legitimate and I'm not sure automatically reverting is the best approach here. Better to have a discussion if there are issues with the change. Either way, I hope it can be discussed here and consensus found. In this case I believe the montage is higher quality than montages in the past and has a thoughtful range of images so I would support it being restored, with any substitutions that editors agree upon. Gracchus250 (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not slightly contradictory to say that reverting to the previous consensus is not the best approach, while acknowledging there is no new consensus. --Merbabu (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't revert just because you can. If there is a substantive reason to revert (other than "we won the last discussion and that's how it's going to stay"), you must describe that reason in the edit summary and here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opening a discussion or attempting to find a consensus do not require reverting by default. Particularly in the case of a montage it is useful to see the actual set of images in question to discuss them, and Wikipedia editing is supposed to be evolutionary, edit-led etc. Regardless, I am in favour of the montage and am happy to discuss further. Gracchus250 (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=logo}
.jpg)