Talk:Boonwurrung

Image copyright problem with File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg

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

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

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

Also spelt Boonerwrung, as used by Melbourne Uni and seen on signs in s/e melbourne 114.76.28.160 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Name change

Spellings like Boon wurrung reflect colonial transcriptions, and the general practice is to write ethnonyms in a way more proximate to the probable original pronunciation or to that adopted by the descendants.

• In this case Bunurong.
• The descendants have chosen to call themselves by this name, the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation was incorporated and officially recognized by the Vic government on 19 July 2017.
• There's another reason. 'Boon' is far too close to the Australian derogatory term 'boong' used to put down indigenous peoples.

Particularly on the second grounds, the move back to Bunurong is obligatory. What the excellent Clarke wrote in 1995 is immaterial in this regard. Any thoughts?Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There's not an easy answer to this question. The Boon Wurrung Foundation uses 'Boonwurrung' on their page but 'Boon Wurrung' in their name, the VACL uses 'Boonwurrung', AIATSIS uses 'Boonwurrung'. For this reason, I'd suggest moving to 'Boonwurrung' if I get around to it, but the spelling of Aboriginal names are hotly contested. Poketama (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

THat AIATSIS Boonwurrung is sufficient basis for changing the name - they are extremely sensitive to indigenous sensibilities and are considered authoritative. The split name we have is offensive to my Australian ear at least.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hm, ok well I will move it to Boonwurrung. I think that, while this may be controversial within Aboriginal communities, there are not enough Aboriginal editors on Wikipedia with local knowledge to make opening a formal move request worthwhile. I'm hoping to be working with people soon who may know more. In the meantime, if anyone disputes the move please let us know and I don't mind moving it back. Poketama (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Point of view

This article reads like an advert for some alternate system of sovereignty. --Pete (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Very helpful, why don't you improve the page or actually leave some comments before dropping a tag? Poketama (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If youre going to revert you need to leave some sort of reason. Poketama (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

As per the template left on the article. It's biased and full of editorialising. We're not in the business of writing propaganda. --Pete (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Skyring's original remark was to the point. 'Stuff' was added off the top of someone's headIviolating the principles of wiki composition. Anything thrown in here without a reliable source will be automatically removed. As a passionate observer of tadpoles, I am still wondering quantity of taddies is needed to allow an edible handful of them to be retrieved after they have been baked under hot coals. Nishidani (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I cited everything, every single thing. Go look at my last edit. Poketama (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Can you give some constructive feedback? How is writing about Traditional Culture on a page about an ethnic group biased? Poketama (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Please don't remove the template on the article until the conditions to do so have been met (as per the link on the template, which you may not have followed):

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

As noted above, the page is biased and full of personal opinions. Just because you can find sources for biased opinions doesn't make them worthy of inclusion here. NPOV applies. When the article is in a shape where consensus is that the problem has been fixed then the template will be removed and we may all be confident the Wikipedia is in a better state than before. --Pete (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think NPOV on Wikipedia means the same as you are thinking it does. We do not have to present all "sides" but we are to present all significant "sides" and even significant minority "sides" within a source in a neutral way. Articles can absolutely be biased if the sources are biased. We speak to the sources. If we don't present a summary of what they say, biased or not, then we are creating original research. My suggestion, if you feel a reliable source is biased would be to attribute whatever is being said to that reliable source. --ARoseWolf 19:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)