Talk:Adelaide/Archive 4

Aboriginal name
Information about the Aboriginal name of "Tarndanya" should be delete from the intro of article.

Earlier, two users removed this snippet ( and ), however the user Poketama (well-known for mass insertion of Aboriginal names wherever possible) using the edit-war brought back this information two times.

The Aboriginal name of "Tarndanya" is the name for just the city centre, not Greater Adelaide. This information should be transferred to the article of Adelaide city centre. In addition, information about this name is already found in the main article, in the section of Adelaide and it is fully sufficient. Subtropical -man ( ✉  | en-2 ) 21:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Subtropical-man, I've restored part of the text that you've just deleted, as it's is still relevant, and deserves to be in the lede. Reconciliation with Traditional Owners is very much an on-going political process in Australia, which has been boosted with this issue being a central plank of the policies of the recently elected Albanese government. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, . What Albanese government? Besides, it doesn't matter. You, Australians forget where you are. I've noticed it before. So maybe I'll explain: English Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not an Australian encyclopedia. Political process in Australia or/and Australian customs you can use at home (in Australia), but not in an international project. Term of "Traditional Owners" is incomprehensible for most people in the world, so such controversial information should not be in the intro. I have nothing against, to add the above information to the section (for example History section). Also, for people outside of Australia, the information about some tribe that did not build this city and that is now a margin of the population (1.6%) - is the most useless information in the intro... and favors this group of people, which breaks the Wikipedia policy (NPOV). Of course, I'm not going to offend anyone - I'm just focusing on the facts :) Cheers, Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 17:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Bahudhara, I tried to correct your text to make it understandable not only for Australians. This sentence is more neutral and clear: "The Aboriginal Australians of the land on which modern Adelaide stands are the Kaurna people". However, I am still in favor of removing this sentence from the intro of the article, because the Kaurna people are just a curiosity, it was not this people who built the city and has a marginal influence on the current city. Intro is a place for the most important information for a modern city, not for curiosities. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 17:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is at best a fringe take that has been decided against by an RFC. If you want to keep deleting content I'll be starting an administrator dispute with you. I have politely explained many times the issues with your arguments. Its time for you to follow the results of the RFC and the consensus of the community. Poketama (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Poketama, Please stop pushing POV. Indigenous name refers to the center, not the whole area, several users reverted these changes before. Your actions here it is extremely bothersome. If other users roll back your changes that is, these changes are incorrect. Stop waging edit-wars to pushing your changes and inserting disputed and controversial data into your articles.If you want to keep your disputed changesI'll be starting an administrator dispute with you. I have politely explained many times the issues with your arguments. Also, its time for you to follow the results of the RFC and the consensus of the community. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 17:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

, since you claim to find this so "incomprehensible", I've just added a ref to the article, to the legal judgement by the National Native Title Tribunal, which is the official government recognition that the Kaurna are indeed the Traditional Owners of the Adelaide area.

See also the Acknowledgement of Country by the Government of South Australia, and the WP article on Welcome to Country.

FYI, over the past couple of months I've been to six public events here in Adelaide, in several of which variously the Governor of South Australia, the Premier of South Australia, several state government Ministers, and other Members of Parliament have been present. Three of these events commenced with a "Welcome to Country" by a Kaurna Elder, and the others with an "Acknowledgement of Country", when an elder wasn't present.

From the City of Adelaide's website, here is the wording of their "Acknowledgement of Country":


 * Adelaide is located on the traditional Country of the Kaurna people.


 * City of Adelaide acknowledges that we are meeting on the traditional Country of the Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains and pays respect to Elders past and present. We recognise and respect their cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship with the land. We acknowledge that they are of continuing importance to the Kaurna people living today. And we also extend that respect to other Aboriginal Language Groups and other First Nations.

An "Acknowledgement of Country" at the start of a meeting or event is now standard practice across all levels of government in Australia - federal, state and local, as well as by major community organisations. Bahudhara (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bahudhara, Australian politics does not matter to the Wikipedia. Even, if your federal or local government recognizes the Aboriginal people as "gods", then we will include this information in the religion section (to other information after the other gods), but we will never enter this information in the article's intro. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 17:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

, please stop your disruptive repeated deletion of the recognition of the traditional owners from the lede. You seem to have a problem in accepting that the Kaurna have been LEGALLY recognised as being the traditional owners of the region which includes Greater Adelaide, by the appropriate judicial body (the National Native Title Tribunal see the ref provided). This isn't just a "curiosity" as you so quaintly put it, this has profound implications across society and governance, and is part of the ongoing transformative changes which are occurring across Australia. This is no longer "controversial " as you put it, this is now the mainstream accepted view. Bahudhara (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , the term of "traditional owners" has no meaning. There are no legislature effects. It does not establish any ownership. It's just an empty term with no real legal implications or property (owners) rights. I know there are differences but this is similar to the title of "honorary citizenship". It is a common term intended to honor an individual or group of people, but de facto do not give them any rights. People with status of "traditional owners" or "honorary citizenship" have 100% the same rights as other Australian citizens. So, this is a simple curiosity, it not suitable for intro of the article because it has minimal importance for the city. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 01:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that it does have legal meaning in some situations - See Native title in Australia. 01:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , your POV is simply wrong - out-of-date and out-of-touch with reality. See for example, this page on the website of the SA Department of Environment & Water, which administers Crown Lands: First Nations agreements and protocols. Bahudhara (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Bahudhara, The term of "traditional owners" is purely honorary. Your source says nothing, for example: "The agreement establishes a consultation and negotiation framework between the parties on matters relating to natural resources and cultural heritage management in the Ngarrindjeri nation" (...) "The agreement sets out to strengthen the relationship between the Narungga People and the state that is respectful and constructive and that assists Narungga People to secure cultural, social and economic wellbeing" etc etc. And what is it supposed to be? This type of cooperation of some ethnic group with government to preserve the cultural heritage are all over the world. Even in my country - Poland. However, no one creates paragraphs about it in the introduction to the article, because there is a place for such texts in the section or even, in separate article. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 02:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read Native title in Australia? It can have quite concrete legal meaning. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read this. Even Native title in Australia shows what are the requirements for recognizing of "traditional owners". However, this term does not confer any additional rights over other Australian citizens. See also source above, I quote: "The protocols do not override or alter the tenure of the lands and waters (...)", so. Therefore, the sentence in the intro is debatable and confusing: "The Traditional Owners of the Adelaide region are the Kaurna people". Adelaide it's a city like any other, everyone has the right to buy land and build a house, and term of "traditional owners" it's de facto just an empty phrase, nothing more. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 02:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely not an empty phrase, and the fact of who owned this land for centuries before European arrival is absolutely relevant to the article. What's most important here is what reliable sources have to say, and e.g. the City of Adelaide's official website considers Kaurna heritage to be literally the first thing relevant to their page "About Adelaide". OliveYouBean (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that in one of your recent edit summaries on this page you used the word "Aborigines", could I ask that you please not use that word as it is considered offensive. OliveYouBean (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * - by what right did you remove the data with sources in your edition ? Please restore deleted data, now! Second, why do you enter information about Aboriginal name of city centre, which duplicate the information from article Adelaide city centre? You are not allowed to add this information to lede without consensus - this name does not apply to the metropolis of Adelaide, but only the center. You restored all changes by user Poketama but also with wrong Aboriginal name which does not apply to the Greater Adelaide. Please delete this spam from lede. Third: please see source which you are based on: this is page of City of Adelaide, local government area, small part of Adelaide. The source does not refer to Greater Adelaide. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 10:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * First, the sourced information I removed was about the foundation of South Australia, not the city of Adelaide, so isn't relevant to the article. Second, I didn't add new information with consensus, I was reversing your removal without consensus. You can't just ignore the number of people on the talk page who are still discussing this and believe it should remain in the lead. You're the only person trying to remove this from the lead. Third, if you want more sources which reflect that this is an important part of Greater Adelaide rather than just the City of Adelaide (which is not just a "small part" of Adelaide), here are some: City of Mitcham, City of Charles Sturt. OliveYouBean (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * - It doesn't matter that you delete data who I added, you were supposed to clean up after yourself. I cleaned up this mess for you. Removed Aboriginal name which does not apply to Greater Adelaide, according to the discuss (and per many sources apply only for the centre, this name is added to Adelaide city centre ). As well, the information is in the history section. Also, I move below sentence about "traditional owners" (still within lede), entering a text about selected group of people in the first paragraph of the article violates the POV principle and is extremely non-neutral. Second case: you wrote: "sourced information I removed was about the foundation of South Australia, not the city of Adelaide" - no, this information applies to the city (only the first sentence is an introduction to this). Quote: "South Australia was officially established as a British Province in England in February 1836. The first governor proclaimed the commencement of colonial government in South Australia on 28 December 1836, near The Old Gum Tree in what is now the suburbs Adelaide". So, this text is about the establishment of the capital of state - in Adelaide. Third: please read SYNTHESIS, you can't add sources from multiple villages and write it as Greater Adelaide. It's a synthesis. Sources must make it clear and precise that the whole of Greater Adelaide is at stake. Not only that, some of your sources don't mention "traditional owners" but use different phrases. "traditional lands of the Kaurna people" is not "traditional owners", in source writes nothing about "traditional owners", so.  Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 19:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I added template of "Failed verification". Sources in article say nothing about Greater Adelaide. The first source only mentions LGA's. Source writes nothing about the metropolis, the capital of the South Australia or Greater Adelaide. This is breaks No original research or/and Verifiability. Second source writes about the City of Adelaide, not Greater Adelaide. So congratulations, you brought back the text with the wrong sources, you deleted my text with the correct sources ... and that's all based on your own POV. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 19:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please assume good faith instead of assuming I'm trying to push a POV. I'm just trying to reflect what reliable sources say about Adelaide, which is that the Kaurna people are a very significant part of the city's history. Also please stop making your contentious edits without consensus. I think this might be a lack of understanding on your part, based on the way that you refer to suburban councils as "villages" and the way that you ignore sources which do talk about the greater metropolitan area (which I provided). It's not synthesis to show that Kaurna heritage is important through the whole metropolitan area by taking sources that talk about the rest of the metropolitan area. If you want a source showing that specifically talks about the whole Adelaide metropolitan area, here is one which opens by covering the entire Adelaide plains as Kaurna land.
 * Please stop edit warring and let this be resolved on the talk page. OliveYouBean (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * - Please stop edit warring and let this be resolved on the talk page. Your actions are destructive. They also break Wikipedia's standards on dispute resolution, incl. CYCLE (if there is new edit, later is revert by other user = first must to be discuss and consensus to new changes). Your actions are a typical example that you trying to push a POV.
 * You have made three offenses:.
 * 1) You restore in the intro a text with an aboriginal name. According to the discuss and per many sources, name apply only for the centre area, this name is added to Adelaide city centre ). There is no consensus on the use of a center name as the name for the entire Greater Sydney area.
 * 2) you put content into the first paragraph of the article about a selected group of people who had a minimal impact on the construction of a modern city and constitute a small percentage of the population - which is extreme breaks Neutral point of view. I moved this data to third paragraph, but you moved to the first paragraph as the most important information about Greater Adelaide, without any consensus.
 * 3) you are removed templates inserted by another user - templates have been inserted correctly. The content of Traditional Owners in the introduction to the article is still debatable (still under discussion), and the sources have also been questioned. Verification of the sources showed that they are inconsistent with the content of the article and a breaks rule of No original research and Verifiability.
 * These are serious offenses. It's not that you have your own opinion. You are not allowed to break Wikipedia's rules
 * You restore wrong the sentence about the Aboriginal name of the city center and inserted it into the first paragraph of the article although not applicable Greater Adelaide + you have deleted templates inserted by another user - you have no right to delete them. You break CYCLE. You put in the wrong sources and use OR. This behavior will not be tolerated. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 09:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Traditional Owners
Bringing the conversation back to the talk page. I deleted templates, and as I've told you multiple times, I was aware that I was doing that. The templates that I deleted were not applicable to the article, as reflected by the talk page conversation. The idea of native title is indeed very important, so you cannot assert that it is dubious. The "failed verification" template is not applicable, because the sources referenced there verify the text of the article. Please stop asserting that I was doing something wrong by removing the templates. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Templates of "failed verification" are correctly inserted. Sources say nothing that in Greater Adelaide, The Traditional Owners are the Kaurna people. The first source mentions several LGAs, not Greater Adelaide. Self-attempting to integrate several cities into something similar to Greater Adelaide is a typical example of breaking the No original research. Second source is a website of City of Adelaide and refers to City of Adelaide, not Greater Adelaide. This is a typical example of breaking the Verifiability. Also, in this source nothing is written about "Traditional Owners", so - writing in the article, I quote "The Traditional Owners of the Adelaide region are the Kaurna people" is manipulation and also breaks No original research. Based on your previous comment (about that you deliberately deleted the templates) two things can be deduced: 1) you are not authorized to delete templates about defective sources because you have a different opinion. These templates are intended to be in article until there is consensus that the sources are valid. Your edit is completely harmful. 2) If you think the sources are good, it means that you are completely do not know the basic Wikipedia's polices. OliveYouBean, please study carefully all of Core content policies, especially Verifiability and No original research. The source must accurately show that "The Traditional Owners of the Adelaide region are the Kaurna people", other places, different LGAs, City of Adelaide do not meet the requirements of Core content policies in this article. The source is supposed to clearly show exactly what is in the article, without guesswork, without speculations, without conjectures, without own opinions or own research. Besides, if the sources shows that "The Traditional Owners of the City of Adelaide are the Kaurna people", we must remove the content from this intro of this article (about Greater Adelaide) and move the content to the article of City of Adelaide. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 03:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The first source does accurately show that the Kaurna people are traditional owners of the Greater Adelaide Region. The list of councils includes all councils within the Greater Adelaide Region (and then some). It's not original research to look at the source and see that the native title claim covers Adelaide. There is no guesswork, speculation, or conjecture involved in this. It's exactly what the source shows.
 * Also, you're again trying to refer to consensus. The consensus on this talk page is that the sources do verify the claims. Putting the templates into the article would be against consensus. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OliveYouBean, you hear yourself? Your words deny that you understand policies of Wikipedia at all. I am quoting your own words that explain everything: " The first source does accurately show that the Kaurna people are traditional owners of the Greater Adelaide Region. The list of councils includes The first source does accurately show that the Kaurna people are traditional owners of the Greater Adelaide Region. The list of councils includes...".
 * First, the sources must make it clear that it is about Greater Adelaide. The source does not show this. The source doesn't even use the name Greater Adelaide or even Adelaide.
 * Second: it is not up to you or any other user to count the LGAs and analyze whether it coincides with Greater Adelaide. It's breaking the No original research.
 * Third: you wrote: "The list of councils includes all councils within the Greater Adelaide Region (and then some)" - really? I don't think so: see list of 19 LGAs in Greater Adelaide vs 28 LGAs from first source. As you can see, the differences amount to several dozen percent. List of LGAs in source includes 1/3 of all LGAs that are outside Greater Adelaide, which have nothing to do with Adelaide.
 * Fourth: I quote your words: "There is no guesswork, speculation, or conjecture involved in this. It's exactly what the source shows" - without guesswork, speculation, conjecture and without your analysis & original research, where in the source writes what writes in the article, "The Traditional Owners of the Adelaide region are the Kaurna people"? Please give me an exact quote from source.
 * Five: I quote your words: "The consensus on this talk page is that the sources do verify the claims. Putting the templates into the article would be against consensus" - what? what? what? where? Please indicate the consensus that the content of the text ("The Traditional Owners of the Adelaide region are the Kaurna people") is correctly sourced and that the templates informing about erroneous sources should be removed from the article. Please indicate the exact quotes from talk page. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 21:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a new source to this part of the article. It says (quote): "The Kaurna people are the traditional custodians of the Adelaide Plains on which Adelaide is located." This should settle any issues with the sourcing. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. The new (third) source is also incorrect for the text in the article... in two points. First: word "custodians" (in source) is not "owners" (in article). Second: "traditional custodians of the Adelaide Plains" is not "traditional custodians of the Greater Adelaide". Greater Adelaide also covers areas other than the Adelaide Plains like Adelaide Hills or even small part of Mount Lofty Ranges, while Greater Adelaide does not cover the entire Adelaide Plains. The fact that Adelaide Plains partially overlaps with Greater Adelaide is not enough. We are not to research, we are to have source which, without research, analysis and guesswork, is fully consistent with content in the content of the article. Subtropical -man  ( ✉  | en-2 ) 21:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Adelaide density.jpg