Talk:Bedford, Western Australia

Untitled
Hey all, I'm the WikiProject Cities assessor of this article. If feedback is what you want and need, come to my talk page and give me a holler! --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 17:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

... have belonged ...
Re these edits ... "have belonged" is correct, both factually and grammatically. The use of "have" includes the present. Examples: Contrast the above with these grammatically correct, but factually incorrect statements: ... and these sentences, grammatically incorrect because the verb tense (present tense) does not match the stated time frame (past): Mitch Ames (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have edited Wikipedia for many years - and still do.
 * You have studied for several years - and are still studying (according to User:HSIEteacher).
 * Noongar people have belonged to the Bedford region for 50,000 years - and still do.
 * I had edited Wikipedia for many years - but then stopped.
 * You had studied - but then stopped studying when you graduated.
 * Noongar people had belonged to the Bedford region for 50,000 years - but no longer do.
 * I edit Wikipedia several years ago.
 * You study last year.
 * Noongar people belong to the Bedford region for the past 50,000 years.

I think "have belonged" is an example of the universal perfect tense, "stating that a given situation has been going on continuously during a period leading up to the present time", and/or present perfect, which may "refer to an ongoing state ... particularly in saying for how long, or since when, something is the case. For example, ... I have lived in Paris for five years".

An alternative would be the present perfect progressive/continuous: "the Noongar have been living ... for 50,000 years". This has the advantage of the more obvious present tense "living", but it depends on whether you prefer "belonging" vs "living" - "have been belonging to the region" might be grammatically correct but is harder to parse. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 RE: Guidelines and Protocols for Appropriate Terminologies for Indigenous Australian content: 

Hi Mr Ames,

There is an issue with grammar, but also colonial ways of thinking. For example, writing these sentences about timeframes may not make sense to you, but in Aboriginal ways of thinking-- time was then, time was now, time is the future. So sometimes saying they belong, and that they have been here since 50,000 years ago, can be correct. But if the only way to have it make sense is to say "have belonged", it would be preferred to write it in a more active, present way. Eg ''For 50,000 years, there has been a local Aboriginal group belonging to this region. This local Aboriginal group are the Noongar peoples.''

Flinders University and AIATSIS both have their own guides for how to appropriately refer to Indigenous-Australian topics. I recommend viewing the Flinder's University guideline. Although it could be regarded 'universal' phrasing; it's not 'universal' when we are discussing Aboriginal history, cultures, and people (see the rationale in either of the guidelines). It used to be more acceptable to view and regard Aboriginal groups like that, however, the standards are changing and protocols are being established. I'm hoping to modernise the language and terminology to the ethical and appropriate forms in these articles.

In your example sentences, you have said you do regard Aboriginal groups as present via the "and still do" ... but evidently, your phrasing in these articles hasn't included the end "and still do" or even a "continue to". It's perfectly fine to then say they "have belonged", so long as you also include the "still do". It would be appropriate for these Indigenous groups to be referred to as both within the articles. Aboriginal groups are not extinct or in the past. We need to make that clear, very carefully, through our choice of language. Aboriginal peoples continue to live on today (without self-determination due to the colonial rule, but that's for a separate discussion). The examples in the Indigenous-Australian articles I've been trying to change haven't regarded Aboriginal groups or people as existing in the present. I am hoping that will be surely modified.

Other useful guides written by authoritative bodies and with the collaboration of Indigenous groups are: Narragunnawali, and Australians Together. I think the Flinders copy may be the most useful to understand past/present issues, though. It's recently been updated, which is always preferred when following a guideline for terminologies. This could also help clarify why it's typically more appropriate to regard Aboriginal groups as the "peoples", not "people". These guides help explain a lot as to why it's so finicky for content about Indigenous peoples. Please let me know if you're going by another guideline/protocol that's been approved by Aboriginal contributors and authorial groups (such as governments) -- I haven't seen a specific one for Western Australian (or Perth) contents yet, though I hope one has been developed somewhere (by a local uni or council perhaps?). HSIEteacher (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Some general points:
 * The article is written in English, so English grammar rules apply.
 * "universal perfect" is a term referring to a specific grammatical construct in English (defined in the linked article section), and is accurate for the purpose of discussing the grammar (independently of the article's subject), which is what I was doing.
 * My examples were intended to demonstrate that in each case the part after the hyphen (in particular, "and still do") is redundant, because it is implied by the main part of the sentence.
 * If there's a specific part of the guides you mentioned that applies to this particular issue - i.e., the terminology "have belonged" etc - could you please cite the specific document and section, and quote it. (If there are other problems with the wording, please use a separate heading to discuss them so that we can focus on each issue separately. Note that I have "removed" the subheading "RE: Guidelines..." (converted it to just bold format) because I think this ought not be a separate subsection - we are discussing the single primary issue of wording around "belong..." and a separate section unnecessarily risks splitting the discussion.)
 * To fix the issues of grammar, redundancy and explicit or implied grammatical tense, I suggest:
 * (Technically the leading "belong to..." is redundant, but it's less obviously so when presented first.)
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the editing, Mr Ames. I will eventually learn the way to do the indented replies soon. English grammar does apply; but it's almost like a Venn Diagram for compromise, because the content is about Indigenous matters. I like the final example. I can see the difference in your intent of phrasing "have" and "had" much clearer now. HSIEteacher (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Article updated accordingly. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)