Jump to content

Talk:Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Both languages"?

[edit]

In the introduction, what is meant by "both languages"? I assume this once made sense, but edits have moved it out of context. --Allanlewis (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things that are not the case

[edit]

... has never learned Braille and does not have a guide dog or use a white cane

What's the point of these words? There are millions of things that are NOT the case, with any subject you care to name, but why list any of them? Henry VIII was NOT the President of the United States, a brain surgeon, a rocket scientist, or an arachnophobe. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care if this is kept or not, but if the article said that Yunupingu could not read, even in braille (another of the "millions of things that are NOT the case") that would surely be encyclopedic. So, sometimes stating things that are not the case can project encyclopedic and relevant information. I think this is the case here. To your latter point, no one expects that Henry VIII would be any of the things that you state, so their mention would be out-of-place. With blind people, like it or not, there is an expectation that they do use braille and mobility aids like canes and animals. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really such an expectation? But even if there is, is the fact that a particular blind person has other ways of getting around and doing stuff important for readers to know? Yunupingu's blindness is obviously part of his story, just as Andrea Bocelli's and Ray Charles's and Stevie Wonder's are, but they're not notable just because they're blind. Their notability arises because of their musical gifts. If they were only half the musicians they are, nobody would buy their records on the strength of "He's very good for a blind person". Their musicality is all that matters in the end. In that context, how they attend to their daily living tasks is of very minor interest, encyclopedically speaking, imo. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extremely late to the party ... but as a blind person, I think the fact that someone born totally blind in the 1970s in a Western developed country never learnt Braille or regular mobility skills is especially surprising, and is absolutely encyclopedic. To me it highlights the remoteness/isolation of where he was raised. His lack of Braille skills would have also precluded him from using Braille music (but that would not be so relevant in a largely oral culture). Graham87 11:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it turns out that, as I suspected, the story is a bit more complicated than that. I've added some info from those sources ... it seemed most natural to just copy the quote about his early musical experiences wholesale, but somebody can feel free to paraphrase it if they like. Graham87 12:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, what I've added about his brief stint in blindness training in Geelong is probably enough. I've therefore removed the offending sentence entirely, which also noted that he was said to be acutely shy ... for a start that observation was in the wrong place and secondly it needed a lot more context. Graham87 16:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mourning period

[edit]

Names and images?

[edit]

Hi all,

Just thought I'd pose the question here and leave it to editors, rather than just going in and changing things myself, but what is Wikipedia style in regards to cultural considerations in its content? In Australian Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander cultures, it is often the case that reference to persons by their first names and (since the arrival of Europeans) through photographs is an offense, due to traditional beliefs and practices.

If possible, would it be possible to temporarily remove photos of Yunupingu's face from the article and remove his first name, either using initials or substituting for one of the common grieving names such as Kumantjayi? I believe his family has asked for this specifically, and many local media outlets in Australia are complying out of respect. I appreciate as an encyclopaedia particularly the name bit may be tricky, but perhaps even just leaving the page meta 'title' as is and changing all the references in the actual copy would be respectful, perhaps marking use with an appropriate footnote, a la:

"After the death of an Australian Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person, it is common for family to request that the person's first name and any images not be used for a period of time. Out of respect for Australian First Peoples cultures and for the family of Dr G Yunupingu, throughout this article the subject of this article will be referred to as Kumantjayi Yunupingu, G Yunupingu or Dr Yunupingu for a period of time."

Even removing some of the current use of his first name in the article and instead just using his surname would be good, as would removing the images or cropping them so his face is not shown.

Also, his doctorate is honorary, but he has been consistently referred to as Dr in all Australian media, perhaps partially to distinguish him from other relatives also in Yothu Yindi. I'll leave that up to Wikipedia editors to decide on style.

--Nubbins01 (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that his obituary in the Guardian also omitted his first name and photos of his face for the reasons mentioned above (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/jul/25/gurrumul-obituary). MFlet1 (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given his name has not changed? Would this not be a lie at worst, restriction to information at best being committed by Wikipedia for religious reasons? Does Wikipedia restrict information to the public for religious reasons in general?
It is a sign of respect for the Aboriginal culture not to mention or display images of the deceased, but it is also worthy to note What Wikipedia is not. As Wikipedia is not a newspaper or formal media, it is not required to follow cultural norms of Australia. While it would be respectful to remove the image, it would be highly inconvenient and a hindrance to the building of an encyclopedia to change and remove the images of deceased people. Personally I think it would be respectful to remove the image for a month or two while his death is still fresh in people's minds, but it's not my call to make. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is respectful to Muslims and Christians to state as fact that Jesus was sent by god. But as you say this is an encyclopedia and as such should stick with known truths. It is also not a "cultural norms of Australia". Most of the population does not practice this religion and most of the population would not censor or want this censorship applied to them. A largish part of the population is probably ok with how the media is handling the situation but this far far different from censorship within an encyclopedia. For instance currently a disgraced incredibly famous Australia comedian is having his face removed from murals and many other art works and awards in Australia. Should wiki follow suit to this cultural norm?
The issue is not censorship. Let's make that clear. There is no question of changing content for polemical advantage. His name has not changed, no, but you will not find an Indigenous people here, and very few white people who know about it, using his first name, at least for a while. It's simply a matter respect for a historically marginalised culture, at the request of his family and people, and for a limited period of time. I don't think the Muslim-Christian divide analogy really fits at all, because we're not debating factual truth here, or differences in opinion about reality. It's simply a mark of respect. Again, as I said, I will defer to the community and editors here, but I feel it was important to have the discussion and for it to be understood WHY this is being requested. Thanks to whoever put the disclaimer at the top of the page, that at least is something. I was honestly surprised how uniform the respect for sorry business was in local media in Australia, even though none of them are obliged to act this way (and indeed many haven't in similar cases in the past).
As an alternative and compromise, would people be happy with a clarification re: the alternative styling in the first par to at least indicate the current usage? Something along the lines of "also styled, since his death, as G Yunupingu, in line with grieving practice amongst Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities." And then maybe change references in the article to him by first name to surname (except, of course, reference to his album which I expect will have to stay)? At least that way people will learn something actually factual from it about the culture, and then there's at least an acknowledgement of the cultural practice in there even if we aren't going to abide by it. --Nubbins01 (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be censorship to the extent Wikipedia is capable of committing censorship, in that censorship does not have to be political to be censorship, and Wikipedia does not say or refrain from saying other things based on cultural sensitivity or similar arguments. Changing the article for this reason would be singling out one cultural group for special treatment, which is contrary to policy.—chbarts (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that Wikipedia "should" remove the image, just that is what would be respectful to do. Wikipedia obviously isn't affiliated with any religious or political organizations and has no obligation to adhere to their rules, (see here), so don't put words in my mouth saying that I wanted to override Wikipedia's policy for one culture's norms. I was just giving my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I strongly disagree with such a position, it's been the community's consistent position in cases like this not to retitle the article or remove images from it. I wish it were different, but there are too many people who confuse "censorship" with "respect". Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

There is the Content disclaimer: Articles may contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events which may be protected by some cultures..

The inclusion of this issue in the content disclaimer is the position I support. If the content offends or is objectionable, the reader can choose not to view the offending or objectionable content. This places the onus on the reader to take their own steps to manage their offence and objection, rather than editors. Requiring Wikipedia and its editors to "respect" (i.e. follow) specific cultural mores is not appropriate and frankly unworkable for a global encyclopedia. The same principle is applied with other cultures such as Hirohito for example.

Note: Respect is in "scare quotes" not because I am dismissive of the cultural practice. The opposite is true, I respect the practice and those who choose to follow it; in the same way I respect the religious beliefs of anyone. Respecting those beliefs is not the same as adopting them myself, however. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • In respect of the content disclaimer added, certainly to the best of my knowledge, Australian media includes a content advisory before some of its broadcasts, warning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders that the broadcast contains the names, images and voices of people who have died - but it's normal that this is viewable before you see the content. In this case, I think the content disclaimer is far too small, or should be on an intermediary page which allows you to click through to the article itself. That way, members of those communities requiring that they don't view material of this nature, can avoid it. Your thoughts please? Dane|Geld 07:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dane that an intermediate page should be considered, as opening the page directly shows prominently G. Yunupingu's full name and photograph. But more importantly perhaps, the home page of Wikipedia, in a section titled 'In the News' lists his full name. That seems quite unnecessary, especially as that is more about 'news' content rather than encyclopaedic content. The more culturally sensitive option of 'G. Yunupingu' would seem appropriate for the home page. Hiraffe (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title: "Mr." or "Dr."?

[edit]

I have expanded the following note to objectively clarify the distinction between usual practice for honorary doctorates, and the unconventional usage (already mentioned in the article) adopted by some in this case.
Avoiding the use of a deceased person's first name is part of grieving practice amongst many Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Use of the title "Dr." is apparently based on the honorary doctorate conferred in 2012 by The University of Sydney[1]. However, most universities, including The University of Sydney[2][3], do not endorse the use of "Dr." as a title for holders of honorary doctorates; this is also reflected in the obituary published in the New York Times, which refers to him as Mr. Yunupingu [4].
—DIV (120.17.43.127 (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

An unknown editor edited the above text to remove "most universities, including The University of Sydney" with the following rationale: "removing original research. find a source from usyd specifically referring to dr. g yunupingu. if anything, i'd bet they're more likely to endorse the use of "dr" as an honorific out of respect for his culture."
Why this editor thought that their guess ("I'd bet") is somehow better than the cited references is beyond me. It is also a novel strategy to claim that citation is equivalent to "original research" — would they make the same claim about the citations given under Honorary degree?? I have therefore reinstated the original text in that place, with the following small adjustments: (i) addition of one more citation[5]; (ii) insertion of the word "apparently" in "apparently including The University of Sydney", to recognise the fact that this is a conclusion reached by observing the university's practice rather than by reading a policy statement (even though policy and practice are not always aligned anyway). Note that this statement regarding The University of Sydney is about their general practice/policy; it makes no direct comment about whether they might or might not have a special policy for one person (although until any evidence to the contrary is presented, it'd be logical to assume that they don't have different policies/practices for different individuals).
This should remain unless/until a more persuasive counterargument can be mounted.
—DIV (120.17.162.200 (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
As a follow-up it is worth commenting on two further aspects of this matter:
(1) The above editor stated, "i'd bet they're more likely to endorse the use of "dr" as an honorific out of respect for his culture." This comment could be interpreted as suggesting that (i) it is respectful to give people undue titles and (ii) different rules should/would apply to people from different 'cultures'. I don't agree with either of those ideas.
Another interpretation is that the abovementioned editor confused the title of "Dr." as being directly connected with honorary doctorates. As the citations show, this is not really true. An analogous logic would be to say that as this singer is/was greatly revered for his musical prowess, therefore he should be referred to as "Rev. G. Yunupingu"! (I wouldn't mind if any of these were presented as nicknames, but they should not be presented as formal titles earned.)
(2) Digressing somewhat into what has become popular practice among Australian journalists and politicians, I wonder why they have decided that "Dr. G. Yunupingu" is a suitable way of respecting the apparent tradition of not naming the deceased. While I am in no way an expert on this, on the face of it it seems to me that any formulation that includes "G. Yunupingu" (irrespective of which title might be present, if any) fails to avoid naming the person! I would have thought that formulations such as "the former keyboardist and percussionist for Yothu Yindi" or "the 2016 NAIDOC Artist of the Year" would be much more respectful of the apparent tradition.
—DIV (120.17.1.75 (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]
My understanding is that G Yunupingu arose by request of the family. Generally, it's only avoidance of the first name that is practiced, family names, for obvious reasons, continue to be used. The issue is not so much identification of the deceased, but the actual saying or other reproduction of their actual name. His name is not G, therefore saying G is not an issue. Nubbins01 (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was the editor who made the initial edit and I've just removed it again because it violates Wikipedia:OR. If you can find a source stating that USyd has a policy of not using honorary titles, or a source specific to Dr G. Yunupingu, that would of course be fine! But your sources relate to the honorary titles of people who are not deceased and from cultural backgrounds which don't have taboos such as the one we're discussing. It's too long a bow to draw for Wikipedia.
58.173.73.120 (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Honorary awards : Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu, The University of Sydney. Last Updated: 17-Feb-2015. (Accessed 2017-08-18.)
  2. ^ Honorary awards - ARMS The University of Sydney. Last Updated: 17-Feb-2015. (Accessed 2017-08-18.) "Mr Reid, who holds an Honorary Doctorate of Business from Charles Sturt University and an Honorary Doctorate from The University of Queensland, is also a Doctor of the Queensland University of Technology."
  3. ^ University Officers - ARMS The University of Sydney. Last Updated: 24-Feb-2015. (Accessed 2017-08-18.) "[...] the Hon Mr Justice David Mayer Selby, after the conferring of [...] the honorary degree of Doctor of the University [...]."
  4. ^ Dr. G. Yunupingu, Australian Aboriginal Singer, Dies at 46. The New York Times, Russell Goldman, 26 July 2017. (Accessed 2017-08-18.) "Mr. Yunupingu was awarded an honorary doctorate of music by the University of Sydney in 2012."
  5. ^ McNeilage, Amy (4–5 October 2014). "Ian Thorpe now Dr Thorpedo, man of letters". The Sydney Morning Herald. p. 31. Retrieved 4 October 2014. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

RFC Concerning the use of Cultural warning and advisory templates on Wikipedia.

[edit]

There is currently an RFC open at Template_talk:Recent_death_Aboriginal_Aus (a template which is used on this article) concerning the use of such templates and notices to comply with cultural sensitivities. Please feel free to drop by if interested. Thanks! Dane|Geld 21:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is now closed. The template has been deleted by community process via TFD. Thank you for your attention. Dane|Geld 17:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance wanted for some additional information

[edit]

I note in the lead section of this article, that it is listed that Dr. G. Yunupingu sung in his native languages, but also in English. It is not noted in the article, but Dr. Yunupingu did not actually speak any English whatsoever, and learned all of the English lyrics he sung, parrot fashion. Where would you add information like this in the existing article context? Would it go in one of the sections which is already present, or would it be added in a "Trivia" section? Dane|Geld 20:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched the Gurrumul documentary, where he does converse in English when he wishes to (also, both his parents speak English as well as their own language); the narrator/his friend says that English is "his fourth language", or similar. So presumably the suggested comment is not applicable (If my understanding is correct). Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 July 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Move to the common name; as "Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu" is his birth name. See his official website here, his official Spotify, and a Google Search yielding numerous references to him with this name for evidence. Quite frankly, I'm surprised this page has existed at the incorrect name for so long. Sean Stephens (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – I'm not sure about this. Plenty of the existing references use his birth name and Gurrumul as a short-hand (I didn't count, but quite a significant number). Encyclopedic sources, such as his National Portrait Gallery entry, are relevant for his purposes; to a lesser extent so is this story, where he is still referred to by some people as "Dr G Yunupingu". The article title guidelines also say that article titles should be as precise as possible, within reason, and must uniquely identify the subject, which just the plain "Gurrumul" would not do. This case is not like Cher, who legally changed her name, or Madonna, who is almost never known by her full name. I think this move request needs wider discussion; I'm going to advertise it at the Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia. I wouldn't be surprised about anything re this article ... I'm still staggered at some of the edits I had to do to make this article at least minimally usable. Graham87 15:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done; I also added a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian music. Graham87 15:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You make good points, and I am grateful for you doing your research before voting. I guess the main problem is that people aren't predominantly typing "Gurrumul" into the search bar looking for the album—the artist is definitely the primary topic for the name, we just need to find a way to reflect that, either with a "Redirect" hatnote ({{Redirect|Gurrumul}}) or an "Other uses" hatnote ({{Other uses}}). Whichever we use is dependent on the outcome of this RM (and if my suggested outcome is the favoured one, "{{R from personal name}}" can be used to tag the redirect). I hope we find a resolution to this problem that appeases all. Thank you for notifying WikiProject Australian music too. Sean Stephens (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, but... - I think there's an argument for both, because on the one hand WP:COMMON NAME applies, and most people would search on Gurrumul, but on the other "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others"... I would be happy to see "Gurrumul (album)" (consistent with Gurrumul (film), and if this page is not moved, a redirect from Gurrumul (person) and perhaps even a Gurrumul (disambiguation) page, if it qualifies. Our aim should be to get the reader to the page asap, and most people seeing Gurrumul come up when they search would assume that they were clicking on the page about the person rather than the album. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Though I closed this RM as "not moved", I have moved the album article to "(album)" and redirected "Gurrumul" to this article. Natg 19 (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Natg 19. I think that is a good solution. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geoffrey_Gurrumul_Yunupingu&oldid=1195051756"