Talk:Cissy McLeod

Birth details
I've marked the date of birth (20 July 1889) given here as doubtful—articles concerning the rescue of Mrs Muggs say that McLeod was 13 years old at the time (January 1912), and the article about her death in England say she was 31—these ages are about ten years out from that date. I notice the date was originally 1896 and is referenced by the death article, which is also linked to Trove later and does not mention the stated items of parents' names, date and place of birth which actually seem to be from this South Australian people RootsWeb page (and it would be questionable if this is in fact the same person). --Canley (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. I've added a note to that effect. Thank you for this! Tenniscourtisland (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Text Tenniscourtisland (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability
For someone at that time to be given a royal human society bronze award I would suggest should clear any doubt about suggest a lean towards the notability issue in view of attitudes of the society at that time JarrahTree 12:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not how WP:N works. The issue really is though that she was notable for only one event, rescuing someone, which doesn't demonstrate notability. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK I can hear where you are coming from - aboriginal saving white person in a frontier environment - is not taken into account -


 * nor - first Indigenous Australian woman to receive a bronze medal by the Royal Humane Society - is dissallowed by your reasoning as well? JarrahTree 13:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's correct. Race or colour is irrelevant. Whether or not she was the first is covered under BLP1E. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * well in that case a little understanding of what the general attitudes towards people of race and colour at that time - against an implementation of a BLP (sic) policy some century after the person did the action, might not go very far with you in your understanding of the rules for living people, I as one editor in the australian community believe such a guideline should be ignored. JarrahTree 13:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why we should ignore the spirit of BLP1E just because the subject is dead. All she did was rescue someone. Plenty of people have done that over many thousands of years. Why should she be elevated above those people? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * fair enough - I hear where you are coming from - but I do not agree on the basis of the spirit of blp in the face of the context and the references since added - JarrahTree 13:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The additional references don't improve notability. Everything revolves around the one event. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * AussieLegend, there is a WP:BIO1E section of the Notability (people) guideline, which seems more relevant here than BLP1E. However I have to say, if this event and award were reported, even widely-so, in 1912 and 1913 and then that was then end of the matter I would agree that the guideline would suggest that the subject was not notable. However, I can't help but feel that the fact that McLeod's death, on the other side of the world, was reported in detail in the press over 16 years after the rescue, with the article saying she was widely remembered by residents of Darwin over a decade-and-a-half later, does surpass somewhat the threshold suggested by the "one event" guidelines. --Canley (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The report of her death was made in the NT Times. At the time, Darwin had a population of less than 1,500 people. In such a small community, people tend to be remembered for a long time, even if they're not notable, so a death notice doesn't really establish notability. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The deaths of Aboriginal people rarely made the newspapers, if ever. The fact that Cissy's did is further proof of her notability.Tenniscourtisland (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, that's not how WP:N, or specifically WP:GNG works. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep bringing up WP:GNG, which the subject meets easily. WP:BIO1E arguably not so much, and it's worth having a discussion about that. Several NT historians consider the subject worthy of research, to quote Don Christopherson "These are the stories and historical accounts that now need to be brought back to life and retold in full and to take their rightful place in the historical timeline of the Northern Territory." (although from the ABC story I gather Christopherson was involved in the article's development). Finally, and sorry, this sounds harsh, but I can't help but feel that dismissing Darwin and the like as "small communities" and therefore subjects and events not meeting some kind of metric for wider coverage is kind of how this kind of history gets lost and systemic bias is entrenched. --Canley (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The reference to GNG was a general one. As for the sources you've provided, the first doesn't explain in what context she is being discussed. It does not lend to notability without context. The second mentions her, almost in passing, along with another person. WP:N, of which WP:GNG is just one part, requires that a source "addresses the topic directly and in detail" and says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" and the way that she is addressed in that source is really not more than trivial.
 * I can't help but feel that dismissing Darwin and the like as "small communities" - Darwin wasn't being dismissed. Tenniscourtisland made the argument that because her death was reported in newspapers, this added to her notability. The point that I made was that Darwin was a small community and in small communities more people are remembered for longer. It was entirely likely that she was only known because she received an award. She would have been more likely to have received the award in the first place because it was a small community. This is as true now as it was then. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a person from an under-represented race, in a under-represented Territory, of an under-represented gender. She made newspapers nationally at a time when that was itself remarkable. If an Aboriginal woman from this period was so noticeable to be in multiple national newspapers over many years, and to reach a status of respectability in a profoundly segregated and colonial society, if she cannot be considered notable, then Wikipedia will continue to have almost no women or Indigenous people included. If Wikipedia's notability rules are so rigid that someone like Cissy McLeod can't be included, then you are in effect saying that Aboriginal women from the early colonial period don't belong on Wikipedia. In order to address the diversity gaps on Wikipedia, we need to take this context into account. Additionally, if Cissy McLeod is not notable, then why is William Jackman notable?Tenniscourtisland (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What you seem to be suggesting it that we give this person an exemption based on race and gender. That is both racist and sexist. Notability is determined based on policy and guidelines, race is irrelevant. What if we were talking about a white male from Outback NSW? Would you be prepared to support inclusion of that person, or would you follow the policies and guidelines? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I don't think Cissy McLeod requires any sort of exemption. Her medal and the extent of coverage over many years makes her notable ESPECIALLY when we take the culture/gender context into account. We know sources/references often aren't as available for under-represented parts of the community (as they are for 'white men'), they weren't written about at much the time, so the fact that she was written about, demonstrates her notability even more. We do need to consider these contexts. As for your comment about the inclusion of a 'white male'... that's my point exactly when I ask why William Jackman notable if Cissy McLeod isn't?Tenniscourtisland (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If we take the culture/gender context into account then we are giving her an exemption. People are not "ESPECIALLY" notable. They are either notable, or not notable. Regarding Jackman, WP:BIO1E says "the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered." In Jackman's case he swam back and forth to a ship 27 times and rescued 27 people. This was a significant event and his involvement was significant. Rescuing a single individual who walked off a dock by jumping into the water is not significant by comparison. McLeod didn't swim a great distance and did it once. So, yes, Jackman is notable given our guidelines. If Jackman and McLeod had swapped places, I would argue that he wouldn't be notable. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is our role to judge how heroic/brave the specific act was. That's extremely subjective. What makes them notable/comparable is that Humane Society recognised their acts and awarded them exactly the same class of medal. So to their criteria (which is what matters, not our opinions on the matter), the acts were of a similar standard deserving of the same medal, which makes them notable. Therefore we should be treating them the same. I think we'll agree to disagree on this one Aussie Legend.Tenniscourtisland (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is our role to judge how heroic/brave the specific act was - You asked the question. I'm sorry if the answer was not what you wanted. The guideline specifically says "the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered" so we have to take these factors into account. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Both events were significant, the individuals role was significant in both cases, they received the same recognition of the same medal and should receive the same treatment in terms of notability on Wikipedia. They are both notable.Tenniscourtisland (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you actually look at WP:ONEEVENT. It talks about "highly significant" events, giving an example of assassins of political leaders. It also talks of an individual playing a major role in a minor event. Clearly, the guideline accepts different levels of significance. For example, we would create an article about the assassin of Abraham Lincoln because the assassin performed a major role in a major event but we wouldn't create an article about the murderer of a local shopkeeper. If McLeod had saved the Australian PM then, yes, an article would be appropriate. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither McLeod or Jackman saved people who had the status of the Australian PM. So by your argument neither is notable then.Tenniscourtisland (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a flawed response at best, and a complete misinterpretation of what I wrote. The Australian PM was just an example of the different levels of significance suggested by WP:ONEEVENT. As I stated, the difference between McLeod and Jackman is that McLeod jumped into the water to save a person who fell off a pier next to a ship while Jackman swam back and forth to a ship 27 times to rescue 27 people. He saved more people in more dire circumstances, so the event was more significant. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Number of references and significance of medal. Bwaandaan (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a deletion discussion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * when you read WP:BLP1E - Biographies of living people/or recently deceased who are notable for one event. Ignoring the fact that her death was a mear 89 years ago. It requires all three criteria to be met for the subject to be considered not notable criteria 1 I read two significant events firstly the adoption of an Indigenous child by a European family, in an Australian context that is significant the impact of such are still ongoing. Criteria 2 yes she appears to have remained a low profile person by Australian sources.  Criteria 3 If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented The awarding of the medal indicates the event was notable, her role in the rescue was/is significant and her role in the event is well documented. Given this the subject is notable but I also agree that it needs more research work on her life to strengthen these. I would say with the breath of sources and the time frame she meets WP:GNG and doesnt fall within the complete criteria required for WP:BLP1E  Unknowns which have potential to alter this are; was the bronze medal by the Royal Humane society handed out like chocolate eggs at easter if so that would limit the notability of the award or very limited and raise it, was Captain Mugg & his wife notable themselves which again would increase the events significance, did Cissy have any notariaty in the places she lived outside of Darwin & Australia, given her travels were themselves significant for an Indigenous person during that period. Gnangarra 00:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Adoption on its own is not notable, whether or not it is of an indigenous child. You will notice that the sources refer to McLeod as "half-caste" and Mrs Mugg as her "mistress", not her mother. It was very common at the time for half-caste children to be cast out by a tribe and for those children to be taken in by white families. They were regarded to be an adopted child but often they were not adopted at all because of the way that Aboriginals were regarded back then. Still, they were treated as part of the family. Similarly, the awarding of the medal on its own is not notable. If it were, we would have many articles on people just because they were awarded a medal. Nearly every member of the Australian Defence Force would be notable as they all get medals today if they have been a member for 4 years or more. Military medals are awarded by the nation, not a single organisation, yet only the most "important" medals, like the Victoria Cross are regarded as being notable decorations. As was pointed out by Canley, WP:BIO1E actually applies here and, based on that guideline, the subject of this article does not meet the notability requirements, as I have already explained. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * that is one of the biggest pieces of racist claptrap I have ever heard on here, as you put it the way Indigenous people were treated "back then" makes both the reporting and award even more significant. As for the medal you will see I noted that there were some unknowns about it that may alter the significance but I assumed good faith in it being significant because its also a civilian medal highest for bravery and would therefore be comparable to a VC but again there isnt sufficient information to make a quick judgement, and then multiply the indigenous person aspect. Europena records ont he lives of Indigenous people, on achievements of Indigenous people so limited that in itself should be sufficient for any Australian Legend to recognise the notability of the person, especially given that a mear 50 years a go Indigenous people were finally recognised in the Constitution which forced states to reclassify Indigenous people as people rather than Fauna, except for those in the NT who werent recognised until sometime later. Gnangarra 02:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That "racist claptrap" as you call it, and I see that as a personal attack by the way, is documented in NT history. It was personally confirmed in about 1987 at Batchelor by a tribal elder named Joshua who we took gliding there one Saturday. (very nice bloke who loved the experience). Again, Wikipedia is not racist. We don't elevate one person's achievements above another because they are a member of a particular race. That's not systemic bias, that's treating everyone the same way. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is not raising one race above any other, the terminology you use is loaded it contains well documented false hoods used to justify the removal of children from families for the best part of the last 200 years, much of those same opinions and reasoning continue to be sprouted.  As I said if you understand the ways in which indigenous peoples have been treated you'd also recognise that such rewards were very seldom given and almost never reported especially outside the area in which they occurred.  To use her race as reason to down play the significance and notability of the event is where the systemic bias is, because we know that historically the achievements of Indigenous people was not commonly recorded and therefore when such records are available they are a clear indicator that something truly significant happened. Gnangarra 14:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If we can set aside McLeod's race or gender for a moment, I actually believe the significance of the rescue and longevity of the public and media interest in the story was more due to her age than because she was Aboriginal or female. I've looked into some other cases on Trove where the RHSA awarded medals for bravery. Some were awarded to children where they had survived a perilous incident, others were awarded to adults who saved or attempted to save any number of people—but I haven't found any so far who are reported on subsequently. In any case, whether it is Cissy McLeod, or the hypothetical 'white male from Outback NSW': if the rescue, and the award, and another significant life event (such as their death) are reported in reliable secondary sources, as they are here, it clearly meets WP:GNG and I would not only support article creation and inclusion, I would write the article myself. --Canley (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To use her race as reason to down play the significance and notability of the event Nobody was doing that. I have said from the beginning that race and gender are irrelevant. Please stop trying to make it so.
 * and another significant life event (such as their death) - Death notices are not significant. Everyone dies. In the old days death notices were often quite elaborate, much more than they are now. There is only one event here, the rescue. Everything else stems from that. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Her adoption is the second event, yes I know adoption is common but because her adoption is part of a greater political event for which you replied with standard racist terms and justifications of the event all of which are proven falsehoods. Notability is because she unlike European people, Indigenous Australians were very rarely recognised, almost never reported on for her to have had both the rescue well documented and her death many years later both reported on not only in local newspapers but in other areas as well makes her notable. The WP:BIAS comes into to play when you use Colonial bias to judge notability without recognising that being recognised at significant level by The Colonial system is in itself unique.  Gnangarra 02:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You really need to get off this racism high-horse of yours. Accusing people of racism is not helping your argument. I simply stated what was the common situation in those days. As for adoption, it is NOT the second event. The sources talk about the rescue and merely mention adoption as background information. There is no notability in the adoption itself. Again, had she not saved Mrs Mugg her adoption would have gone unnoticed, as would her death. WP:ONEEVENT clearly applies here. Trying to make the adoption notable because of her race is, at best, inappropriate. Many indigenous children were adopted, along with children of other races. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm highlighting that WP:BIAS exists with sources related to the subject, also noted AGF on adoption being secondary as there isnt yet enough information and yes without the rescue it'd be same many thousands of other adoptions even those in the subset of the Stolen Generation. The issue is that cultural bias of the time means that the reporting is actually a more significant indicator that the subject is notable. Gnangarra 04:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cultural bias is not the issue at all, no matter how much you want it to be. The article is about a person whose only claim for notability is that she jumped into the water to save someone who fell off a wharf. Everything else that we know about this person stems from that one event. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cultural bias is the issue here, ignoring cross cultural impact and recognition ie WP:GNG = WP:BIAS Gnangarra 01:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)