Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 61

• Strong Oppose - If it is not an official language then no need to have an Indigenous name --Thomasmax911 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as per the usual guidelines for alternative names, where these are solidly sourced. This has been one of the more troublingly racist discussions (at least from certain quarters) that I've come across on Wikipedia in a long time and so I've steered clear of jumping into the fray, but ultimately, the answer lies in cutting the emotion out of it and going back to the guidance in
  MOS:ALTNAME. I'd also add that some of these !votes (especially the red-named new accounts) seem to have political opinions that directly contradict Wikipedia naming policy. The Drover's Wife (talk
  ) 03:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Why must we always poison the well with the racist card. Aircorn (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - No one even use those names, why bother writing it. Muzi (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Support As per
  MOS:ALTNAME, I strongly believe that where appropriate Indigenous names of places and locations should be used in the lede and infoboxes. Dan arndt (talk
  ) 04:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Support - As referenced above, this issue is a policy issue that is already clear. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says that "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted". As far as I see it, any further necessary discussion is around the legitimacy of sources and how this information is written, not about the legitimacy of the inclusion. For the sake of it I'll argue a few points:

Opposing argument #1 - There can be multiple spellings of Aboriginal placenames and multiple names and this makes it impossible to include these names.

Counter-argument - It is true that this is an issue, but not that it precludes including the names. Spellings are something that are often still being sorted out, but I don't believe spelling issues should disqualify the content. As for multiple names, it is standard in many Aboriginal cultures to have multiple names for a place and all names should be included. Multiple names in a lead is acceptable in the MOS.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322413717_Multiple_Aboriginal_placenames_in_western_and_central_Victoria

Opposing argument #2 - The name should only be included if its an official name.

Counter-argument - There hasn't really been any reason or policy given for this argument. However, this stipulation would wipe out virtually all Indigenous placenames which would not fit with a balanced NPOV. It is inherently political if a government adopts an Indigenous placename, and this is very unlikely to happen in many places. However, the government's decision not to make a name official does not mean the name is not in use.

Opposing argument #3 - Aboriginal names apply to areas and regions and so there cannot also be the same native names for cities.

Counter-argument - This is logically incorrect. The City of Port Phillip is in the same area as Port Phillip Bay. Both share the same common name, as well as a number of other current and historical regions known as Port Phillip. In the same way, metropolitan Melbourne is referred to as Naarm by contemporary Aboriginal communities, despite the historical usage of Naarm to refer to Port Phillip Bay. If it can be shown that an Aboriginal name is in use for a city, this argument isn't enough to deny that fact.

There is also further argument that is not settled about whether the seperation of a historical region from a current region or city is reasonable at all. One user above has mentioned that Gadi refers to the region that Sydney now occupies. Another user has argued that Sydney is a settlement that continued on from and merged with the existing Aboriginal settlement and community. In my opinion, Sydney is inseperable from the region known as Gadi. They are both regional terms, referring to the same location. Sydney, the city, is inseperable from Sydney, the region. In the same way that Gadi, the settlement, is inseperable from Gadi, the region.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Phillip_(disambiguation)

Opposing argument #4 - Indigenous names are not used in other countries articles and this is evidence that they shouldn't be used here.

Counter-argument - I have not been shown policy that shows that this kind of comparison is appropriate for deciding policy. In any case, Australia's closest neighbor New Zealand uses Indigenous placenames extensively. New Zealand has a fundamentally similar culture and history to Australia and if we are comparing precedents, it is a far better example than Poland or the USA.

Opposing argument #5 - This feels like a political issue and Wikipedia shouldn't get involved.

Counter-argument - This issue has the potential to be influenced by politics. It does not mean that it cannot be sorted out through looking at existing policy. If a name can be backed up with sources, it should be included. The decision to scrap the whole idea entirely would not be removing the politics from the situation - it would be an example of supporting Systemic Bias and a lack of NPOV. This is because it would lead to only including the position taken by European opposers to the policy, which is to only have the European name.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Opposing arguments #6 - Various statements around what constitutes a reliable source for inclusion of a name.

Counter-argument - This is something that needs to be looked at and worked out. I believe as a community we can work out what is acceptable sourcing to show that these names have been used by Aboriginal communities. This is not an insurmountable issue and should not preclude a wider policy of including Indigenous placenames if they are well-sourced. Poketama (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Support As per MOS:ALTNAME, as the resource of knowledge that Wikipedia is, it is very appropriate that Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander names for locations are included in the lede and infoboxes. How wonderful to have this layer of history and references available to the readers who want to know more. (From MOS:ALTNAME - 'When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages.) I look forward to the discussions about suitable referencing although I can't see this to be different from any other statement of fact within Wikipedia. Pakoire (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. We already have suitable guidelines for this,
  WP:RULECREEP - particularly since no editor in support of this proposal has explained why these guidelines are inadequate. BilledMammal (talk
  ) 11:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The nominator has clarified that This is not an attempt to create a blanket rule. I oppose any attempt to create a blanket rule, but I support the use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander names where appropriate, such as at
    Port Phillip Bay. However, I oppose any change to guidelines, as the current wording already supports the use when appropriate. BilledMammal (talk
    ) 11:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Support MOS:ALTNAME already expects the inclusion of the names in parenthesis, these names are clearly significant otherwise we wouldn't be having a month long discussion about them twice a year, but also the names are in current use and increasingly used among the non-Indigenous community also as the names begin to gain recognition. There was the New Zealand example earlier in the discussion too which works just fine. It doesn't take anything away from the articles to include a few words in parenthesis, it absolutely creates an opportunity to increase reader engagement because they may not have known about the cultural history of the places and the continuing diversity of the places. In a similar note, Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge, and including the names is an opportunity to share knowledge which improves understanding of the places and their cultural diversity & what makes the places what they are today.

As much as I would love to include the names everywhere, and wish Wikipedia had a way of handling oral history given what happened to my ancestors (for example, my grandfather would refuse to write things down in fear of his & our safety, only telling us knowledge orally), I completely understand the need for verifiable sources, so as long as the names have sources, I strongly support their inclusion in parenthesis. I'd caution against relegating them to history because we still exist and we still use the names, it's not ancient history. GadigalGuy (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• New Zealand is being offered as an example. The problem with that is that the Maori had a civilisation with settlements and strongly-defined names. They farmed the land and it was important to them what usage specific pieces of land had. The British settlements can be more or less precisely mapped onto pre-existing Maori settlements where the names can be reliably sourced using contemporary records. That wasn't the case here in Australia where there were no Aboriginal settlements at all. Not saying that's a good or bad thing just that there's a massive problem in sourcing that doesn't exist in New Zealand. --Pete (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how that situation is much different? Maori people did not have their own writing system, and there is information that shows Aboriginal settlements including with stone dwellings, aquaculture, and agriculture. For example: Budj Bim heritage areas Poketama (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Support - {My statement is currently being composed... to my standards... *grumble*(oh how I hate my standards!!)*grumble*} IronBattalion (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per
  MOS:ALTNAME and the many detailed arguments made above. The arguments against including suitably verified Indigenous place names are not persuasive. Issues around the sourcing and applicability of specific place names can certainly get complicated, but that kind of complexity is best dealt with through the ordinary process of collaborative editing. -- Visviva (talk
  ) 16:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support -
  MOS:ALTNAME is pretty clear that this is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, but it does seem as though it's worth having that spelled out somewhere for this specific context to avoid any ambiguity. New Zealand's articles are a great example of how this can work in practice. Turnagra (talk
  ) 21:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Support - as per the reasons outlined by others above. The native name of places is an option in infoboxes pertaining to towns and cities (among other landmarks). I’m shameless in that, in my view, Wikipedia should be used as a means to shift the overton window, which has already been shifting within the last few years when it comes to the acknowledgment of indigenous history of the land but it’s not about being ‘woke’ either. It’s about acknowledging history that, whether you agree or not, has been actively pushed into obscurity and whitewashed. If the indigenous name of a place can be verified and backed up by a source (which may not always be possible as, as another editor mentioned, Aboriginal languages are oral rather than written), it should be included in the infobox under the common name of that place in addition to being expanded upon in the history section. Geelongite (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support – The rules are clear:
  WP:NCPLACE says "The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses" and "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted." And yet incredibly some opposers are citing these very guidelines as supporting their opposition! I do think this needs a nuanced, possibly case-by-case approach, with appropriate referencing, and most importantly that the name or names are confirmed as appropriate/accurate traditional names by the relevant Indigenous Australians (land council, Aboriginal corporation, etc.), and the language is known, and ideally that it has significant contemporary use. I wouldn't support an absolutist approach of every article with a "known" name having it in the article, but I don't think anyone, including the post that kicked off the discussion, is actually suggesting or proposing that. The small number of opposers are advocating for an absolutist approach of no traditional names in the lead or infobox ever – there seems to be no level of referencing they will accept; no willingness to compromise on their position or cooperate to reach an acceptable consensus; no good faith for those who disagree with them to the extent that accusations of vandalism, destruction and activism are made regularly. Even worse they suggest actual Indigenous Australians have a "bias" and should not be commenting on their own language. They repeatedly appeal to "logic" rather than referencing their own arguments (hard to prove a negative I suppose), or cite strange interpretations of the rules mentioned above (such as that alternative names must be in English) or of historical documents. Lastly, they seem compelled to reply to every single opposing comment on multiple talk pages, blowing out these discussions to epic proportions, so thanks to @Poketama: for trying to organise a comprehensible RFC and move replies and rebuttals to a threaded discussion section. --Canley (talk
  ) 06:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The good news is that wiki policy and wiki guidelines cover this topic well, meaning there is no need to waste time debating what to do. The bad news is that many editors , in good faith I am certain, are desperate to ignore those rules and inject as many articles as possible with their own personal opinions. Look at this comment that displays a predetermined decision based on personal opinion. "This is important information to Aboriginal peoples is lost when these names aren't represented". I agree, but so what? I should add that there is an enormous misunderstanding of wiki rules. Here, for example, from mos:altname used to justify indiginous names in the lead: 'When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages.). This means significant alternative names in the English language, not significant to the indiginous group or to the editor who wants to promote their cause. That is why Danzig is significant and can be put in the lead but Roma is not, so we stick with just Rome.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger - The article for Rome does, in fact, present Roma as an alternative name in the lead sentence.The Logical Positivist (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of this discussion is that it is being disputed whether Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander names should ever be used in the first sentence as an alternative name. The two positions being forward are, it seems to me, that they should be included as an alternative name when the name appropriately applies and can be sufficiently referenced; while the counterargument is that they should never be used as alternative names. As there is a clear Wikipedia guideline on this that with

MOS:ALTNAME that provides for 'historical names, and significant names in other languages', it is still unclear to me why we would not follow that policy for Australia, as can be seen in plenty of examples for places in New Zealand and South Africa. To treat Aboriginal names as somehow lesser seems highly inappropriate to me. The Logical Positivist (talk

) 08:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Roger, let me quote the line from MOS:ALTNAME you just quoted to us: "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages." You seem to have some strong opinions that just aren't supported by policy, and Wikipedia isn't a place to push your particular ideological barrow. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger Your position seems to misinterpret the MOS. English names have prominence and are usually the only ones that should be used for article titles, but alternate names in other languages within the first sentence are almost universal. See: Beijing, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Tokyo, Japan, Wellington, Ireland, New Zealand, and so on. Poketama (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, If you’re going to quote me, quote me fully. Don’t misrepresent an entire argument by selectively quoting. Not only were two books linked in the quote you draw from, but I also said that there are multiple reasons for including Aboriginal place-names, and I continued, “Regardless of how one feels about Indigenous histories of place, this is information that should be included in an encyclopedia entry that is discussing the history of/information about a place.” Other editors have also clearly shown you why and how MOS:Altname fits here, and have given you multiple examples of it in action. —Hobomok (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

First, my Rome example was not a good one, so yes I made a mistake, so sorry. Second, just because very many articles put the foreign name of a place in the title, does not make it correct - wikipedia is not a source. The only reason why it can be justified under wiki rules is if that foreign name is significant. Take a step back and consider. Significant in what context? Significant to the speakers of that language perhaps, or significant to English speakers only in some limited cases. The second I suggest is what it means for obvious reasons: this is an English language encyclopedia. Now also consider the malaise of copy-cat mass standardisation that afflicts wikipedia. That habit could well have led to all these foreign indigenous names being inserted without question. Example where a foreign alternative name is justified in the lead would be Bruges/Brugge or Falklands/Malvinas because both are significantly relevant to English speakers. Thus, no, I do not think I have misinterpreted the guidelines, rather some editors here have. I have no issue with indigenous names being used in the article, just not in the lead or infobox. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ALTNAME specifically makes clear that significant names in other languages go in the lead and editors have cited a huge amount of examples of that guidance being in use on some of the busiest place articles on Wikipedia, so trying to define that guidance out of existence (for example, it says absolutely nothing about being significant to English speakers only) won't fly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Close as bad RfC: Per
  Spekkios (talk
  ) 07:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  As per Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment It is very rare for an RfC to be closed soon after it starts, unless the RfC initiator has agreed. In most circumstances, editors who find issues with an active RfC will explain their concerns about the question in their response, so that their comments can be understood correctly. Many editors read the comments from previous editors before posting their own replies (but not usually comments on other pages or in other sections), so these explanations may counteract any issues with the initial statements.

  I'll do my best to make it clearer in the future, for now I think whoever writes the formal closing summary will understand the context from the discussion. Poketama (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose such names should not be place in the lead sentence. However if they are supported by reliable references they can go in infobox, and in a later part of the article. The reason for not having it in parenthesis after the English name, is that using these names in most cases is undue, as the name is not from a language widely spoken in the city. The examples given above eg Beijing, or palces in New Zealand do not apply to the Australian case. Better examples to follow might be Canadian cities eg Vancouver, where a name given by the Squamish people is in a Name section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose As aboriginal languages predate all cities in Australia, there are no genuine aboriginal names for any of the cities in Australia. The recent presentation of aboriginal geographical names (fake names) as alternatives names for Australian cities is ill-considered and against Wikipedia:Naming conventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simulaun (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Simulaun, you say “there are no genuine aboriginal names for any of the cities in Australia” - I guess the cities of Canberra (Ngambri), Parramatta, Wollongong, Wagga Wagga, Nowra, Geelong (Djilang), Wangaratta, Mandurah, Karratha and so on do not exist? GadigalGuy (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  The original settlers named these new settlements, so they are not bona fide Aboriginal names for these cities. Further, these names are non-aboriginal adaptions of Aboriginal words, thereby further distinguishing them from genuine Aboriginal words/names. So these cities do indeed exist, just not their aboriginal names (never have, never will). Simulaun (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oh come now. English-language place names change over time. There are a great number of Australian place names with clear Indigenous origins. If the original European settlers gave their village that name then that's the name of the village. It may not have been an exact equivalence, and it may well have been a mistake like those occasional signs we see saying "The translator is on holidays". Maybe Wollongong means "What did you say, white dude?" but well, that's the name that stuck. My beef is where Indigenous names are being offered for cities that obviously had no pre-existing names, there being no permanent settlements apart from the TSI people working their way down Cape York. If you are going to argue against something then use reason and logic and Wikiprocedure. --Pete (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - follow (
  WP:LEAD. Stuffing in some virtually unknown title at that level is not helpful. Cheers Markbassett (talk
  ) 14:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support Where the Indigenous name can be reliably sourced, it should be included. Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not what is being asked here. It is a poorly-framed question that will most likely result in confusion and uncertainty. --Pete (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought it would go without saying that everything on Wikipedia should be reliably sourced. In creating an RfC I tried to keep it succinct, as per the guidelines. Poketama (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support. My reasoning is as the above supporting comments. Indigenous names are obviously supported by Wikipedia policy. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 06:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Sometimes. If estalished alternative with clear spelling in wide use then yes. If not no. No hard or fadt rule. --Seggallion (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Where there are sources to verify that an alternative-language name is in ongoing use, then this is a pretty clear-cut case where
  MOS:ALTNAME applies. For place names in regionally appropriate Aboriginal languages, including the name parenthetically in the lead sentence is both appropriate and explicitly permitted. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs
  ) 21:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. I don't really know what's actionable here, since the nominator notes that This is not an attempt to create a blanket rule but also that it is to clarify if this could or should be done, pending further discussion on the details. My only reading of "this" is "some rule", so I'm not even sure what the nominator is proposing. But, even if a blanket style rule were being proposed, this is the wrong venue to do so; the
  WP:CONLEVEL explicitly notes that participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. In other words, a WikiProject cannot just go off on its own with a local consensus that goes against a greater consensus, and it seems like the only thing this RfC is asking is whether or not to create a special rule for Australian leads and infoboxes that's different than the leads and infoboxes for everywhere else on Wikipedia. And, on top of that, not all relevant WikiProjects have even been notified of this (for example, WP:WikiProject Cities
  ), which makes the CONLEVEL issue even more concerning.

As such, we need to use global guidance for the lead and the infobox. With respect to substance, if a name for a place is a non-English alternative name that does not have significant English language use,

talk

) 23:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@

Mhawk10: I agree vehemently with your first paragraph, but I find troubling your implication that indigenous names should not be used unless the place is primarily inhabited by indigenous people. These are people who still exist, they are not some historical tribe that has been long exterminated. If a name is used by contemporary speakers of these indigenous languages, we should absolutely include it (following everyone’s caveats about reliable sourcing etc.). These are languages significant to Australia’s modern existence, as well as its history. — HTGS (talk

) 02:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that we should include a name in the lead if a name is used by contemporary speakers of these indigenous languages on the condition that the people who speak that language still live in the relevant area and represent a substantial proportion of the population there. While I am not particularly familiar with the history of Australia (or New Zealand, which has been referenced in the conversation above), my use of primarily was imprecise and I do not mean to argue that natives needed to be a majority (or plurality for that matter) of residents for such a name to warrant mention in the lead (even when a "name" or "etymology" section exists). My apologies for my miscommunication. —

talk

) 03:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Indigenous names if sourced well may be included within brackets and italicised in the first sentence of the lead alongside their language as is standard practice, but they are rarely common names and hence should not be used in infoboxes nor bolded which goes against
  talk
  ) 03:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  You are misreading that MOS page.

  MOS:BOLDALTNAMES says that "significant alternative names ... are placed in bold". And there's the rub because significant is up to interpretation. Poketama (talk

  ) 13:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Entirely support inclusion of indigenous names where relevant, and to be honest I cannot see any reason why they should not be at least mentioned somewhere in the article in every case, assuming the alternative name can be reliably sourced, but the should not automatically be included in the infobox and lead in every case, but instead only where it's a name which is widely accepted (relative to the main name) per
  WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor is it really the case that the indigenous name will be the "original" or "first" name of the place, or even a "significant" one, since many settlements simply did not exist before the arrival of European settlers and the indigenous name(s) for the place will be later creations that exist only as part of listicles. FOARP (talk
  ) 08:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

In regards to people saying that this is not a yes or no matter, I understand that and this RfC is not intended to be. Feel free to say maybe. However, the idea is to resolve the initial question of if it should be done before delving into the secondary questions through additional RfC's on when and how it should be done and what constitutes acceptable sourcing. Poketama (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I feel that having names in ledes and infoboxes needs strong sourcing and historical usage, otherwise it is

WP:UNDUE

. To that end I proposed above - a long way above in a previous subsection - that we only do this if we have a very good historical source in the "Name" or "History" section. Or we get consensus on a case by case basis. This is obviously a matter of strong feelings and we need to take care to find a workable policy that doesn't result in ongoing cultural warfare amongst editors battling for one team or another. Let there be justice, equity and unity.

If you are proposing a blanket policy of having Indigenous placenames in the lede and infobox of every Australian geographical article, then my answer is No. The matter is not about inclusion, it is about prominence. It is not a matter of a city having alternative names over time and in different cultures, it is simply that before European colonisation there were no cities of any kind so it's not like saying that the city of Istanbul was once known as the city of Constantinople. What was the city of Melbourne called before Europeans arrived? The answer is nothing, because there simply was no city there at all.

The matter is nuanced and controversial and I feel that any sort of binary Yes/No view is going to be arbitrary and unsatisfactory. This needs discussion, certainly, but within established Wikipolicy regarding sourcing, NPOV, and so on. --Pete (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, although I'd probably disagree with Skyring on some individual cases, I don't see that there's really an alternative to the case-by-case approach he proposes without taking a stance that would be both a drastic

WP:UNDUE approach either way (though, to be fair, I haven't really seen anyone here pushing for the all-in approach). It's a nuanced subject and there's not a standardised system, so it fairly logically comes down to determining each case on the available information. The Drover's Wife (talk

) 08:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Poketama, To "Counter-argument #1", I qoute: "As for multiple names, it is standard in many Aboriginal cultures to have multiple names for a place and all names should be included" - yes, all aboriginal names may be included in the article, but this need not be the first sentence of an article about the city. Please be serious. To "Counter-argument #3", I qoute: "Another user has argued that Sydney is a settlement that continued on from and merged with the existing Aboriginal settlement and community. In my opinion, Sydney is inseperable from the region known as Gadi. Sydney, the city, is inseperable from Sydney, the region" - the fact that something has something to do with Sydney does not mean that you need to write about it in the first sentence of the article. To "Counter-argument #4", I qoute: "I have not been shown policy that shows that this kind of comparison is appropriate for deciding policy" - are you serious? It's not policy, it's standards of the Wikipedia. The fact is: almost all (several dozen) countries of New World (like Australia) do not use the indigenous name for area in the first sentence of the article about cities. To "Counter-argument #5", I qoute: "The decision to scrap the whole idea entirely would not be removing the politics from the situation - it would be an example of supporting Systemic Bias and a lack of NPOV" - the same problem with you, no one suggests removing Aboriginal names from the article. The discussion is only about putting multiple names in the first sentence of articles. Your problem is that you treat everything as black and white. You are trying to argue that Aboriginal names are valid, but have not given a single strong argument to insert these Aboriginal names (often many) into the first sentence of your article on Australian cities. I support the use of Aboriginal names in the article, but not in the first sentence. Apart from honoring the Aboriginal people, these names have no function in the first sentence that is meaningful to the entire city or international readers Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 07:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think discussing this between us any further is going to be productive, which is why I've opened up the RfC. Please be civil and assume good faith. Poketama (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose should only be mentioned I the body if the current name is derived from an indigenous word ....

  This is the norm all over. Moxy- 03:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Second problem: it has already been noticed before that the introduction of Aboriginal names on a mass scale is ethno-political. Even a few users argue it this way, like "part of redress for past wrongs is the rediscovery of names and their reapplication".

Hi there Pete, can you explain to me what you mean by 'woke' in this context? I only ever hear this used as a pejorative, mostly by far rightists, so I'm not sure why you would use it here to refer (apparently) to me, particularly if you want to suggest that I'm 'making a political statement'. How is using a far right pejorative not waving a big political flag yourself? ҉ Randwicked ҉ 16:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Randwicked, who I believe made the original comment regarding redress can obviously speak for themselves, but I think they are being taken out of context. I interpreted their comment as around how Australia is rediscovering and adopting Aboriginal names more widely as part of addressing past wrongs as an explanation for why these names are now being used significantly more commonly, rather than that itself being the argument as to why we should use them on Wikipedia. So I don't think anyone is arguing that we should be using Wikipedia to force social change. The Logical Positivist (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Logical Positivist. This is exactly it. I was explaining the context of why these names are coming into prominence, and why some anon editors might be removing indigenous names, to an editor who seemed unaware of that context. Very weird that one part of my comment got extracted sans context and used as evidence that I'm 'woke', whatever that is supposed to mean these days. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 05:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree here with

WP: Right Great Wrongs, but including reliably sourced place-names in the lead and infobox, especially if those names are included elsewhere on a page, only makes sense. I get the feeling that the editor you're quoting here feels very strongly in one direction about this given frequent polemics on the subject, but they haven't spent much time listening to the other side.--Hobomok (talk

) 03:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with The Logical Positivist and Hobomok above. It's just a matter of going back to basic policy principles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this issue should be a large element of the discussion but should be a point of caution. The way I see it, it is a NPOV issue that has the potential to be politicised by both sides. I believe you agree, if it's sourced well there is precedent and policy to include the names. I think not including the names would not be NPOV - as it would be contradicting existing policy and intentionally removing well-sourced information that a user disagrees with to suit a ethno-centric bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#:~:text=The%20systemic%20bias%20of%20Wikipedians,bias%20is%20noticeable%20throughout%20Wikipedia.

In terms of talking about 'woke' Wikipedians, yes their POV may be biased and they need to back up their statements with evidence. It is also evident the opposing side is also potentially politically motivated. For example user @Muzi above has a userbox that says they are a 'Constitutional monarchist' across several nations. In general, the right-wing of politics has been opposed to Indigenous recognition. As such, hopefully this RfC can pull comment from people outside of Australia and different political bubbles to discuss the issue as a matter of fact and policy, not as a matter of politics. Poketama (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There are some who are wedded to their own views and will never change their minds, regardless of facts or Wikipolicy. In discussion these views are generally identified and rarely gain consensus. I would say that the desire to have no Indigenous names at all is one such position, as is the view that every lede and infobox should have an alternative Indigenous name sharing equal prominence, if not renaming the article entirely. I have seen both views expressed and I think both are equally unworkable. --Pete (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC tag removal

The tag for the RFC shouldn't have been deleted by an editor. It should've been kept in place, until the expiration date. At which time, the bot would've deleted it. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Other longstanding cultures

How should we deal with other established alternate naming systems? Many Australian places have names within the SCA Kingdom of Lochac which also includes New Zealand. These are names in current use, and have a direct one-to-one mapping with towns, cities, and states, as per this map. There are a myriad of reliable sources for these names, such as the ABC and SMH. --Pete (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Pete, you’re just trying to make a point, so here is the counterpoint you’re looking for: indigenous languages have a cultural and national significance that foreign languages do not. If you’re trying to be smart, why don’t you ask why we don’t list the Chinese name for Perth as well? The answer to your questions has been presupposed by everyone else at this point, so I personally would appreciate if you don’t play games, but instead make the argument you want to make. — HTGS (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This comment makes it pretty clear where Pete stands in this discussion, IMO. This is apparently an insincere and disrespectful attempt to get a rise out of people, or as the kids call it, trolling. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 11:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my intention. I'm opposed to crusaders inflicting their political or cultural views on our encyclopaedia. Names that are not in everyday use don't deserve undue prominence. I'm more than happy to see Indigenous names and meanings explored at length in an article's history section. Not so much in lede and infobox which is where we give a quick blast of information. If someone is looking up the name of a town, it's unlikely that the ancient location name is what they are looking for. Or the SCA's feudal name. Both are names of minority interest unless one is pushing a cultural barrow in which case they are all they care about. --Pete (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I cannot see how it is helpful or constructive to attack other editors with language like "crusaders inflicting their political or cultural views on our encyclopaedia" and "unless one is pushing a cultural barrow in which case they are all they care about". HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

For the record I don't believe Pete is acting in bad faith or trolling. He's making a point. A bad one, but just a point. — HTGS (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Further discussion planning

Unless someone has a better way to work out the intricacies of this issue, my current idea was to continue doing RfCs to answer individual parts of the larger question. If you have any feedback on questions you would like answered, or how they should written, please chime-in.

• So after this current RfC there would be:
• 2. Are there times when Indigenous names should not be included in an articles lead?
• 3. What constitutes suitable sourcing for including an Indigenous name in the articles' lead?
• 4. If Indigenous names are not clear on their location how should they be handled? (ie. Does Meaanjin refer to Brisbane CBD or Brisbane)
• Side note: Should a reference to 'Brisbane' be interpreted as a reference to Brisbane (the broader metropolitan area). I would argue it would, in standard Australian English.
• 5. Can an Indigenous name be included as the name for a location, if there are other sources saying it applies to another location? (eg. Naarm is the contemporary word for Melbourne, but also is historically recorded to refer to Port Phillip Bay).
• 6. If not, how can the conflict be handled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poketama (talk • contribs) 11:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

For items 4, 5, I suggest that Perth's Etymology section, 2nd paragraph, is a good example. Disclosure: I wrote that paragraph, so I am biased as to its merits. At least one other user disagrees with the paragraph; see the article history, article talk page, and earlier comments on this project talk page for details. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Two key contentions in that paragraph are unsourced, the key contention that is sourced relies on two not particularly clear one-sentence mentions by the same author and then basically contradicts itself through muddled phrasing, and then questionably frames the modern usage through use of weak or questionably-described sources. It's a pretty good guide of what not to do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

2 is an unanswerable question because they need to be discussed on a case by case basis. 3 is similar: there is not a uniform, formal approach, so it needs to be hashed out in each case. 4 is just a question of what the sources say. 5 is similar: we describe what the sources use, and if the sources verify that it's the contemporary name it is absolutely not the place of Wikipedians to disregard sources based on their own opinions. These all basically fall back to the same point: take the opinion and emotion out of it and assess each case on the available sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

So far discussions on these issues on a case-by-case basis has led to a standstill and edit-warring. Do you know how to proceed in those instances? eg. the Perth article has been fighting about this one for quite a while. Poketama (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Was there an RfC held for the Perth case? That would've been the best option in my opinion. --

Spekkios (talk

) 05:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Having an RfC every single time these questions comes up seems to me to be a poor use of resources. The same arguments are had again and again and again across virtually any page with an Indigenous name or proposing an Indigenous name. Is there no way to establish a precedent? I'm not saying 'all pages must have an Indigenous name without question', I just would rather not have to deal with arguments like 'Parramatta cannot be called Parramatta because there's also a Lake Parramatta' one hundred times. Assuming that argument is incorrect, if a user can just use it to block editors who are contributing names until a RfC is done - they will use it as a weapon to filibuster progress and people will give up editing. I've seen this happen enough in this space already to know that would be the case. Poketama (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The precendent is already established in

Spekkios (talk

) 09:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

What Spekkios said. There's not a way around this because it's not like there's a standard uniform system of recognition of indigenous names, or any standardised way it could be approached - it's something that's inevitably going to be worked out case by case. One thing that perhaps would be useful is an RfC on establishing some specific guidance, such as knocking on the head the racist assumption that the boundaries of Aboriginal place names can't evolve over time in the same way Anglo place names do all the time, which would seem to run through some of the opposition to referencing well-sourced contemporary names. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback you two. Poketama (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

"…the boundaries of Aboriginal place names … evolve over time in the same way Anglo place names do all the time…" As in Sydney referring to a city a great deal larger than the original settlement? Yes, but how exactly would this work for Indigenous place names? The place names of the original residents referred to geographical features. A bay, a valley, a river, a mountain. Those things don't evolve over time. There were no Aboriginal towns or cities that are entities distinct from the land. Any name for a settlement would have to have come after the settlement was established. Are there any instances of that situation? And, on that note, do you have examples of Aboriginal place names evolving over time? This all seems very hypothetical to me. --Pete (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

"So far discussions on these issues on a case-by-case basis has led to a standstill and edit-warring." Perhaps this is an indication that there is a problem? Trying to mandate that every Australian place has an Indigenous name in the lede and infobox is unworkable IMHO. The real problem is that only a few names are going to achieve consensus through sourcing, established usage, and geographic equivalence. There are a few crusaders who are doing their best to sneak as many alternate names in as possible by a variety of methods. One I highlighted earlier was the mass cut-and-paste of heritage board listings to replace established Wikipedia text. So much for our work over many years; now for many articles we just have slabs of text from some council website. A copyright headache at the very least. Can we not work together instead of trying to sneak things past? --Pete (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you link to some examples where this is happening? I havn't run into any occurences of people trying to mandate anything, but I have run into a lot of wiping of names by uninformed users. If what you say is happening I'll pitch in to help correct it. Poketama (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of articles on heritage-listed places and objects in New South Wales and Queensland which were auto-generated using CC-BY licensed text from the websites of those states' heritage councils. I presume these are what Pete is talking about? As I said, they are CC licensed so there is no copyright issue, didn't replace anything, and they were generated years ago so have nothing to do with "crusaders" trying to "sneak things past", or with this debate or traditional names at all as far as I can see. --Canley (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm also baffled as to what Skyring is referring to here - if he's referring to the heritage sites project, that a) had nothing to do with indigenous issues and b) didn't touch any city/town articles because it was entirely focused on buildings and specific sites. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "2. Are there times when Indigenous names should not be included in an articles lead?" Answer: Yes. While Indigenous names for geographical areas can/should be used in the lead, there are no bona fide Indigenous names for Australian cities. There is a recent trend, however, of using Indigenous names of geographical areas instead. These should, however, not be presented in the lead as bona fide Indigenous names as that would amount to disinformation. Rather, they should be presented and explained in the body of the text as aberrations.Simulaun (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

User Pete wrote: "So far discussions on these issues on a case-by-case basis has led to a standstill and edit-warring." Perhaps this is an indication that there is a problem?" - exactly. From the beginning, inserting Aboriginal names generates nothing but trouble. Also, I qoute: "There are a few crusaders who are doing their best to sneak as many alternate names in as possible by a variety of methods" - that's also absolutely right, I noticed it too. I also agree with user Simulaun, I qoute: "there are no bona fide Indigenous names for Australian cities". Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

As someone who has spent plenty of time in the well known Australian cities of Wollongong and Canberra - I have to disagree with the notion that “there are no bona fide Indigenous names for Australian cities”. GadigalGuy (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"Joshua John Moore, the first European land-owner in the region, named his grant "Canberry" in 1823 after the Canberry or Nganbra tribe" Simulaun (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes but there are also similar names locally. Jerrabomberra for example. I'd like to see some original sourcing on the matter. So many of the sources offered are current contemporary rather than anything we can reasonably document as pre-existing settlement. --Pete (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Whilst agreeing that this is a poorly constructed RfC I would like to note: (a) that geographical locations and local landmarks rather than cities are the articles most likely to get indigenous names associated with them. (b) Looking at the Uluru page there is a "native name" entered in the infobox so there is somewhere that it belongs. (d) No matter what this will be decided on a case by case basis. This matches what can be seen on the renaming of places in South Africa.Gusfriend (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

Given the many viewpoints and intricacies presented here can I suggest the development of a

Sounds like an excellent idea.

1. Indigenous place names are appropriate in articles on Australian topics.

2. Where there is a reason to use it - for example in discussing aspects of settlement or history or there is a clear Indigenous component to the content.

5. Indigenous place names should not be given equal prominence to the established place names without a very good reason:

5a. There is a good historic source for the name

5b. The name has been in wide use over time.

6. Indigenous names are always appropriate in the history section of a location article and are encouraged, along with good sourcing and some mention of the pre-colonial people: who they were, any "first contact" events or difficulties etc.

Just my thoughts --Pete (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking that it would also be good to include a couple of examples like Kata Tjuta/The Olgas and Uluru which is officially gazetted as Uluru / Ayers Rock as part of a dual naming policy plus noting that the consensus has changed over time as can be seen for those places.Gusfriend (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

'Uluru' highlights what I think is one of the problems with dual/alternative naming. The current WP Uluru lead starts with "Uluru (/ˌuːləˈruː/; Pitjantjatjara: Uluṟu [ˈʊlʊɻʊ])...". This is 1) duplication of information (2x 'Uluru') and 2) information (Pitjan-something or other) that is of little or no immediate relevance or interest to the vast majority of people perusing the page in question.

This appears to be a common issue (e.g. "Wrexham (/ˈrɛksəm/ REKS-əm; Welsh: Wrecsam; Welsh pronunciation: [ˈrɛksam])") and I do not believe that it is expedient to start out with what is essentially a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Pedantic details do not belong in the introduction/lead. Simulaun (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Something else that would fit nicely in the essay. Gusfriend (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

lede

is where we try to be as useful and information-rich as possible.

Without wishing to offend anybody more than they desire, this information aboput Indigenous names and languages and tribes and nations is not sufficiently useful or practical information to warrant such prominence, especially for those who use Wikipedia for actually finding stuff out rather than scoring political points here and elsewhere. If I'm on the road and I ask Siri to pull up information on a place, I'm going to have to wade through all this cruft before my phone screen (or Siri's querulous voice) gives me anything useful.

I am not saying that this stuff shouldn't be in the article but realistically it is information that refers to a time and environment of centuries past and the cultural and political environment of having to worry about tribal boundaries and names and what Indigenous language was spoken where has long ceased to have any immediately practical purpose. It is now effectively a political battleground, and I am heartily sick of all this unhappiness and unproductive manouevring about who is planting their team's flags in our fabulous information resource. Instead of being on the peak of the summit of an article, perhaps it could be more usefully presented in the body in a "History/Entymology" section, something of that nature? --Pete (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It could be worst. This could be an RFC related to gender pronouns, etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, gender pronouns are things that we've got to get right as well. In my eighth decade, I've seen mainstream culture change to an extraordinary extent, and nowadays people commonly use pronouns and names and gender identities and preferences that would have been unheard of when I was a girl.

Indigenous placenames are another topic, and one we need to get right. I don't want to see extremists throw rocks at each other, but nor do I want to see poor scholarship passed off as solid information.

essay and I think that is a bloody good suggestion. I think it needs to be a cooperative effort with some solid grounding in Wikiprocess with the objective of being something we can all take ownership of as a way forward. How do we proceed from here? --Pete (talk

) 02:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

There are several levels and types of essays

WP:GUIDELINE

.

My quick reading of them leads me to think that creating a namespace essay is probably the best way to start as I think that it will take a bit off back and forth to get started. Then at a later stage we can work towards having it as an Australian Project advice page.

If no-one has an issue with the approach I will start something so that we have something to start with in the next day or so and then let everyone here know about it so that we can work on it.

Gusfriend (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm seeing a lot of goodwill in the discussion above. Crusaders taking hardline positions, not so much. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I've kicked off something here. --Pete (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)