Talk:Afghan cameleers in Australia

renaming
Note as this article is about the historic group of people it sits separately to the (currently redlinked) article Afghan Australian --Matilda talk 22:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the Afghan Australian article is no longer redlinked, and because the new refs show that the original "Afghans" were in fact much more ethnically diverse, I suggest that the article be renamed "Afghans (Australian cameleers)". Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2019

 * 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: Moved to Afghan cameleers in Australia &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "Afghans (Australian cameleers)" or "Afghan cameleers in Australia"? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943  (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Ghan (cameleer). Clear common name, hence the name of the train. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Afghan cameleers in Australia per WP:NATURAL In ictu oculi (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Laterthanyouthink and In ictu oculi - the history of this ethnic group as a book that went into 2 editions (at least), there was a good display tied in with the SA book at the ANL some years ago, and subsequent writings identifies them as being a specific group, and they preceded the train, I can see Necro's argument, but for the material that I have seen to date, I would go with the suggested move. JarrahTree 07:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, and . I've been working on updating the article further. I think that both have merit, but it looks as if Afghan cameleers in Australia is winning... I'll give it another day or two before moving. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Afghan cameleers in Australia. “Afghan cameleers” per the reference titling, an “in Australia” for minimum context already assumed in the references. Prefer WP:Natural over WP:Parenthetical disambiguation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I agree, I think this one fits and looks best. Only when I try to move it using the drop-down "Move", it won't allow it because of the existing redirection page in that name, and I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do a manual copy onto a Redirect page. Can you (or or  or  please direct me how to proceed, and also how to mark this discussion as closed? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Laterthanyouthink, let the RM process play out. Necrothesp has suggested something different, and so the process calls for letting the discussion go for at least seven days, to hopefully give everyone, including weekend-only editors, who may be interested, to chance to contribute.  We don't want to over-fiddle page titles, because it changes the url, and breaks peoples bookmarks, and off-site reverences, and any other incoming links.  I agree the current title is not good, but it has been that for over ten years, so one more week won't hurt.  The process calls for someone uninvolved to come in after a week, read the discussion, and enact its conclusion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks . Happy to wait - just thought it was up to me to do something about it at this point. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proportion of actual Afghan descent
, just a query - do you have a source for your change saying "the majority of them belonged to non-Afghan ethnic groups"? I did quite a bit of work on this article some time ago, and although it's pointed out many times that many came from other areas other than present-day Afghanistan, I don't recall seeing any evidence that the majority were not from this area. Because "Afghans" was a term applied by the inhabitants of Australia and was the name that stuck as common terminology, but it is known that they weren't all Afghani, the term is (or should be) enclosed by quotation marks wherever it is uses outside of this article. Without strong evidence to the contrary, we cannot assert in the lead that the non-Afghans were in the majority - although if there are sources which argue the point, this can be provided in the article. It is for this reason that I have reverted your change, although open to discussion her with you and other editors to reach consensus. The discussion should also reference Ethnic groups in Afghanistan, Afghan (ethnonym) and Afghan. It seems to me that the usage here accords with the latter article's definition of "Afghan" as "the national demonym for all citizens of Afghanistan". Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You can look in the book cited in the article already called "Australia's Muslim Cameleers: Pioneers of the inland.. etc" There's an incomplete list of names of the various individuals provided you can use as an example. The majority of them are certainly not Pashtun which at that time and now is what the word Afghan truly refers to. Indian's can be found more frequently. Some of the individuals with Hindu and Muslim names and Indian birthplaces have been miscategorized as "Afghan"as well. I understand why you would remove my changes since the sources are a little scarce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khehshankas (talk • contribs) 18:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response, . I requested that book from the library yesterday so hopefully it will turn up in the coming week or two. However, your comment raises two issues: firstly, to quote from the Afghan article: "In modern times, Afghan is rarely used as an ethnic term for the Pashtuns, but is rather used as the national demonym for all citizens of Afghanistan"; and secondly, using a list of names and coming to a conclusion about their origins as editors here is contravening WP:SYNTH - we need to quote published sources. I realise it is complex, but I think we need to defer to modern usage of the term, i.e. what most readers would understand by it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you the edit was quite lazy with using a list of names to arrive at a definitive conclusion, this was actually my first edit on Wikipedia ever! Interesting, I think given your reasons I would have to defer to your suggestion then of keeping the national demonym to the "modern" English language sourced usage of the term (What most readers would understand by it). Have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khehshankas (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, no worries, and congratulations on your first edit! If you have a look at some of the links I've posted on your user page, you will see some of the rules and guidelines about editing on Wikipedia. It can take a while and is a continual learning process, but you it doesn't take too long to get a feel for what is allowed or recommended. One of the basics is that everything should be sourced - even if we "know" something, it needs to be backed up by reliable sources (see WP:RS) - and also check related articles on Wikipedia. I hope you will stick around! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)