Talk:Cabramatta, New South Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Sydney (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Cabramatta, New South Wales 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (marked as Low-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.

Discussion over crime, bickering[edit]

Shouldn't the origins and history para come before crime problems? Of course Cabramatta is known for its reputation, but having such a paragraph come before is a bit POV, it seems. Dysprosia 12:23, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)\

I don't think so. The crime problems are in effect the main thing that this suburb is remembered for. Arno 12:25, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In comparison, San Francisco is remembered greatly for it's gay culture. Cabramatta is rememebered for it's crime reputation. Though either characteristic constitute 100% what either city is about, either. There are also a lot of nice things about Cabramatta as well. Dysprosia 12:29, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree with Dysprosia, regardless of what it may be known for, origins and history should come first, all other city articles follow this format (for example San Francisco starts with "history", not "gay culture"). I switched it back to this format in an early edit. -- Lexor 12:44, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I know.
Where is this history first requirement found in the wikipedia rules? Arno 12:46, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It's not a rule, in the sense of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, but it's a clearly a convention that is widely applied, and could be submitted as a guideline (all such policies and guidelines are built by consensus anyway). I really think that putting "crime problems" first in the article (and devoting so much space to it), is not a NPOV way of writing the article. Most articles dealing with locations describe the physical location, geography, history and so on and then get to describing the social aspects of the city. Baghdad during the war was known for its bombed out streets, New York more recently is known for the attacks on the WTC, but those facts aren't included in the first few paragraphs. They are written as encyclopedia articles. In 5, 10, 20 years time Cabramatta may not be a crime-ridden place at al. Encyclopedia articles should be written not purely from the standpoint of the present, and that is wikipedia policy. -- Lexor 12:58, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's "against the rules", just suggesting that doing so mightn't be such a good idea. Sorry. Dysprosia 12:49, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the verification. However, I feel that it is acceptable in this instance. As for the point about writing about nice things about Cabramatta ( eg the folk festivals) there is a link that points to that, but perhaps this and a physical description could be added to the article. Feel free to do that. Arno 12:52, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
But then where would it go? Before or after crime problems, or after history? If we discuss things about Cabramatta before we say where Cabramatta came from, then the article's structure starts to make less sense... Dysprosia 13:01, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Dysprosia's point is well taken. Let me clarify myself on my earlier statement, what I'm suggesting is that we should Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly (a policy). I also take this to mean that articles should take a long perspective, which means that physical facts and history (not recent history) which aren't going to change, should come before discussing issues that, while they might seem like the most important aspects of the place today, may not be as important in the future. -- Lexor 13:09, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
But it is still a current issue. Just out of curiosity, are you from Sydney? Arno 13:11, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
That's fine, but talk it about after the older history, then it makes more sense and it's in context, putting up front means it's out of context, and yes, I have lived in Sydney before and I know Cabramatta. I think it's not a NPOV of describing a place by jumping straight into its current problems, that's the role of a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. -- Lexor 13:17, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Ah, so it's an informed assessement. I used to live in Sydney as well and have had fleeting conmtatc with that suburb.
With respect, I disagree with what you say about the article being NPOV. Its these matters that people are likely to consult this article on. To use your logic in another area, should the article on Flight 175 begin with a history of its existance befoere we move onto the reason people are likely to look at the article ( ie the Sep 11 crashes)? Arno 13:27, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
You're comparing apples and oranges. There are thousands of flights everyday, and only Flight 175 is important, but Cabramatta is a place that consists of many more facets than a transient airline flight. An encyclopedia like Wikipedia would ultimately have a listing for every Sydney suburb, and all them may have some interesting facet, but we don't list them for their "curiosity" value, we list them for completeness. What I object to in your reasoning is that it appears to you that the only reason somebody might want to know about Cabramatta is because of it's crime problem, and it's simply not a neutral point of view, to view a place in that fashion. For all we know somebody might lookup Cabramatta in Wikipedia because they know somebody who lived there, not because they want to know about the crime problem they've heard about. 99.99% of visitors to wikipedia won't have even heard of Cabramatta. For the people that live in Cabramatta (and also in the rest of Sydney) it's a place to live, not just a "problem place". New York City in the 1970s used to be crime-ridden, but you didn't pick an encyclopedia back then and have it say "New York is a crime ridden city" in the first few paragraphs. If Britannica had done, that people in NYC would have been most upset, and rightly so. -- Lexor 13:55, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I belatedly agree here with Lexor. The crime points have been made in the intro, in any case. I'm moving these paragraphs back. Dysprosia 13:03, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I grew up and lived in Cabramatta for the first 24 years of my life, and I have to say that although the suburb carries a stigma that requires tactful handling (it can be a conversation killer), it was in many ways a unique and significant place: for example I refer to the statistics in the 1980s that showed the high school to be the most multicultural in the state. The multicultural Sydney that we know of today exists because of the kinds of roots that began in places like Cabramatta. Mgream 22:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arno, we've discussed the point of putting crime problems before origins and history, and the general consensus has been to keep origins and history first. Replacing the layout as you wanted it is not being bold, since it is going against this consensus. Dysprosia 04:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it's a case of blind stupidity here, not reasonable discussion, that had obviously not diminished with time as I had hoped.
Other articles do not have this history before description format and, oh, whats the point of even reasoning with someone like you. I simply cannot see what is so utterly, totally, heart-wrenchingly, life-and-deathly important about having the wretched history first , which, if you are still prepared to stick to the your format months after the original 'discussion', must be how you see it.
The history was my work, by the way, whilst yours appears to be, lets see now, mucking about with the article's format. Very vexing. Arno 06:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Arno, I think you are being very short-sighted here. Both of you along with many others have contributed to the article, a single user does not claim "ownership" of the article. The crime is mentioned in the intro paragraph, and the section on it is pretty easy to find, so what's the problem? -- Chuq 08:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it's a case of blind stupidity here, not reasonable discussion, that had obviously not diminished with time as I had hoped.
I don't think it's quite accurate to say that just because the discussion here has not favored your viewpoint, it is simply blind stupidity.
:Other articles do not have this history before description format and, oh, whats the point of even reasoning with someone like you. I simply cannot see what is so utterly, totally, heart-wrenchingly, life-and-deathly important about having the wretched history first , which, if you are still prepared to stick to the your format months after the original 'discussion', must be how you see it.
Baghdad has not stated in the first section the crime with the insurgency. Mexico City starts with history. Malabo even starts with history. And on it goes.
If you want to know what is so "utterly, totally, heart-wrenchingly, life-and-deathly important about having the wretched history first", why don't you scroll up and read the previous discussion and detailed arguments about why it is inappropriate to mention the crime details of this town before even mentioning the details about the town in general first. An article on dogs does not describe how they maul people at times before describing the details about what a dog actually is.
If we're "still prepared to stick to the your format", then maybe it is an indication that this is the layout that was agreed by consensus and that this layout has merit. I'm afraid that just because you want the article a certain way does not mean that we should immediately capitulate to your preferences. There is enough mention in the first paragraph of the crime in the town, we don't need the first entire section to mention it either.
The history was my work, by the way, whilst yours appears to be, lets see now, mucking about with the article's format. Very vexing.
And the discussion above here is our work, whilst your contribution to the discussion above appears to be complaining that you're not getting your way. It's also very vexing when others insinutate they are not improving the article, based solely on the size or quantity of their edits. Dysprosia 09:05, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You've again twisted my words around to suit your politiclaly correct objectives - for instance, I've never claimed this article as my own. Barging in with your 'discussion' is, by your own admission , your contribution and nothing to be proud of. Arno 01:05, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I've responded to what you said, based on my interpretation on what you're trying to say. This is nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with making the article as good as it can.
Coincidentally, bringing up a very real issue here and then discussing it is something undesirable and "nothing to be proud of"? Saying that in itself is nothing to be proud of, Arno. It's not stupidity, it's what talk pages are for, we discuss things and we try and get a consensus. That is what editing here is all about. Dysprosia 01:41, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arno, you removed some of my useful material: granted you were correct in pointing out the authorial slant, but actually rather than amending it, you simply removed it -- this is not fair. I agree with the others that crime and related issues should not go first: one always starts with a general cronological overview (which may mention these strands -- i.e. crime, migrants, etc) and then addresses each significant strand one-by-one. Crime in Cabramatta is simply one of these strands. In 50 years time, crime may not be relevant as it may have been a passing concern, whereas the cronological history will always stand. --mgream 00:02, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The meaning of the word[edit]

Hi there, lived in and grew up in cabra, there nearly every weekend to see family.

I dont know where you found the meaning of cabramatta from, it has been identified as meaning in the regional aboriginal dialect 'running waters' from my regionaml histroical sources, and my family also has lived there for generations since it was farmland!!, referring to the creek, which was the only source of fresh water for some way. actually this is were the farms really started, around the creek at what is now cabramatta road (there is a reason it seems to meander around and isnt straight, it is pretty much the original dirt track path) and orange grove road, presently called the cumberland highway. The township grew where it is now due to where the train ran from sydney to liverpool

I grew up in Canley Heights, and my recollection of the meaning of the name Cabramatta was, as you say, 'running waters'. Fairfield City Council's website says the same thing. I had never heard anyone say it meant 'place of good fish' until I read it here, but I had heard at one stage in my youth the reference that it meant 'home of white grub', which the Collaborative Auto Biography site says. At any rate, the reference to the place's Aboriginal heritage is a little skimpy. Trevar (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Aboriginal history section is pretty bad! The Cabrogal were a clan (the suffix 'gal' denotes clan in the darug language) of the larger Darug tribe. The Darug tribe in this sense can be thought of as a language group that covered most of the Sydney basin. I believe (and someone may like to check) that Cabramatta falls within the (modern) Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council area. It can be confusing because Gandangara is also a tribe (language group) who I believe also have connections to the area but it is incorrect to state that the Cabrogal were part of the Gandangara tribe/language group. James Kohen has written several books on the Aboriginal history of western sydney as well as Darug language (According to him Cabramatta is Cabra= Cobra grub and Matta= water place). I hope that someone with a connection to Cabramatta will take the time to look into this and ensure that this history section is more accurate124.187.135.209 (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

AU's Largest restaurant and shopping precinct?[edit]

Is there a reference to the claim made in the opening para that Cabramatta is Australia's largest restaurant & shopping precinct? Depending on how you define "largest", offhand I can think of a few which could rival it. Anyone have the original source for this claim?--cjllw | TALK 07:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


I find myself offended at this characterization, and I think it's pretty clear wikipedia should be deleting things people find offensive. So can we delete the crime section? I'm offended. And offense is all that matters. You're involving wikipedia in matters of non-NPOV nature. To publish that they are becoming part of the problem. To this end, I suggest deleting the crime section. 16:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A couple of the assetions in the first paragraph do need references or citations, i've put {{fact}} in there so people are aware of that. Agnte 21:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
To gloss over the bad aspects of a place and focus on the good is in fact non-NPOV. If this article currently has a biassed slant towards the negative, than these things usually sort themselves out over time through good edits, not mass removal of content. It is important, however, to remember that Cabramatta, deserved or not, has a reputation that extends to all corners of this vast land. aliasd·U·T 22:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And no, Wikipedia does not delete things just because people are offended by them! Lack of censorship is a major principle of this wiki! aliasd·U·T 22:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

change of federal division[edit]

due to the changes in electoral division on the federal level, cabramatta has changed to the blaxland electorate, though the suburb of cabramatta west is still in the electorate of fowler... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)