Talk:Cold fire (Noongar fire type)

"Fire management" or "bush management"?
Should the article title be "Cold fire (bush management)" or similar? So far as I can tell from the article, "cold fire" is used to manage the bush ("clear undergrowth and promote easier access and movement through the country"), not to manage the fire. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree, either "bush management" or "land management" or perhaps culturally idiomatic "care of country". Either way though I would suggest it should be a merge and redirect to Fire-stick farming (which may have its own problems)? It does not seem reasonable to have two such articles.  Aoziwe (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The more generic it becomes with subsequent edits - it misses the point of the very specific references to a specific cultural practice. Keep and stay as is. JarrahTree 00:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Firstly its not fire stick farming, its using fire to manage the undergrowth. Its also not "bush" management because it relates to Nyungar settlements, cultural sites, its literally a process of management by fire. It enables regrowth of certain plants specifically seeded, it provides open hunting areas, it maintains access to areas of significance including sacred sites, trails, water sources, protection of settlements. Its also a Nyungar specific practice that has been adopted by DPAW is now part of their controlled burning practices across the WA.  Nyungar fire management has specific cultural practices associated with who, how, when, and where such fires are used, they also tie in with Nyungar history. Its a very complex set of information, working with sources that also need translation and colonial records is complex. This stub was created due to the need to relate with a Wiki Loves Earth in Australia 2019, and WLE International post which is due out before the end of the month. Gnangarra 03:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Its also not "bush" management because it relates to Nyungar settlements, cultural sites, its literally a process of management by fire.— If it's not managing the bush, what is it managing? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Ian Abbott is very good on this stuff, a UWA academic with an interest in nomenclature, documentation, 'old timers' and Nyungar culture. If there is a name to be had in the literature on the practice, it will be in the article or a later research that cites it. Other sources would also be valuable, but there is a starting point in the ref section. cygnis insignis 08:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Based on the clarifications above, ie, the article is discussing a form of practice specific to an individual culture, rather than the local version of a more generic practice, why is not the article actually called by its cultural name, ie, Karla Nyidiny. Then any "" are irrelevant for the main article.  It can still be redirected to from "Cold burn ".  I had sugggested "care of country" above but I now see the phrase "cleaning country" is used in the source article so is that better?  If it is management by fire rather than management of fire then the "" needs to distinguish as such I think.  Aoziwe (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is not the article actually called by its cultural name, ie, Karla Nyidiny — Because this is the English language Wikipedia, and (so far as I can tell) "Karla Nyidiny" is not proper noun. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is management by fire rather than management of fire then the "" needs to distinguish as such I think. — Agreed. "Fire management" is misleading - I think it implies management of fire, rather than management by fire, but the article suggests that it is the use of fire to manage something else. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It cant be called Karla Nyidiny as thats noongar not english noongar has many different fire types we'd end up a whole series of Karla articles. Cold fire is just one of many fire management strategies used in Western Australia, another is Windrow, prescribed burn, scourifying(pre-seeding weed management). Ideally it should just be Cold Fire no disambiguation necessary.  sadly the use of the generic "Aboriginal" is a problem in itself as that covers over 300+ cultures see https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/fire/fire-and-the-environment/41-traditional-aboriginal-burning and https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/documents/fire/karla-wongi-fire-talk.pdf second is more specific to Pibelman country. This word sleuthing on a disambiguation is disruptive, draining, pointles, and ironically longer than the article and achieved nothing, if you want another disambiguation call it Cold fire (Noongar fire type) Gnangarra 13:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with gnangarra - these style of conversations miss the point in the end.  JarrahTree 13:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking of points that appear to have been missed - my original point was that the parenthetical disambiguator in the article title was itself misleading or ambiguous, contrary to WP:PRECISION. Fortunately now the discussion does appear to have achieved something. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I am (ec) was (seems to be resolved) not wedded to an particular renaming. I thought I was being part of a discussion from which I could learn something about cultural significance in Australia and just wanted to get the most reasonably accurate culturally relevant outcome.  English has always just adopted words from other languages if it suits to best capture a meaning, so why not use the best term here.  Why would it be bad to have all fire management strategies described?  Surely we should be aiming as an encyclopedia to do this regardless of what culture they derive from?  Yes I think there is a lot more to this discussion than just the name of one article.  Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is a wider subject, but its fairly common to waste talk pages of discussion on WA topics especially Indigenous ones, quickest solution is just find a name any name as quickly as possible that makes it go away so I can get back to the article content. This was further pressing because of the WLE timetable, I'll come back to a more appropriate naming discussion in a couple months. Gnangarra 13:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want something to read to learn more see History wars. Gnangarra 13:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

See also - Fire-stick farming
I added a "see also" link to Fire-stick farming, on the grounds that the latter is a "related article", and well within the scope of MOS:SEEALSO. In support of my assertion that they are related, here are extracts from the two articles:
 * Cold fire is a type of controlled burn frequently used in Noongar culture to clear undergrowth and promote easier access and movement through the country. ... The cold fire also promotes a diversity of new growth, ... attracts animals to these areas
 * Fire-stick farming was the practice of Indigenous Australians who regularly used fire to burn vegetation to facilitate hunting and to change the composition of plant and animal species in an area.

Note the common theme - using fire to clear vegetation, for purposes including promoting new plant growth and affecting animal presence.

However disagreed and removed the link on the grounds that it was "racist, NPOV  [sic]". I accept that the Fire-stick farming article may be non-neutral, but unless it is deleted - or re-written to be about something completely different - it would appear to be perfectly reasonable candidate for a "see also" link, and propose that it should be re-added to the "Cold fire" article. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

As per the previous discussion above, I had, and still have, even more so now, concerns about the article before the POV tag was placed on it. However, I can see no grounds for excluding it from a See also. WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Aoziwe (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fire stick farming has nothing even to do with farming, its a coat rack from the History wars to accuse 300+ countries of causing the extinction of mega fauna. This article is about fire management by a very specific cultural group, that is now being adopted by the wider community in WA to manage & prevent fires. Gnangarra 13:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fire stick farming has nothing even to do with farming, — I don't dispute that. But unless the first sentence of Fire-stick farming is completely wrong when it says "burn vegetation to facilitate [something]..." it is a sufficiently related topic to satisfy WP:SEEALSO. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the first sentence its nothing in common with this article, Firestick farming is a bias piece of the History Wars related solely to placing blame extinction of Mega fauna on generic "Indigenous Australians", it is not related to Nyungar culture, WA fire management or practices. making it totally unrelated to this article. Gnangarra 14:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The topic of both articles is the use of fire (Cold fire: "controlled burn" / Fire-stick farming: "used fire to burn") by Indigenous Australians ( Yes I know there are many different Indigenous Australian countries/nations, and they are not all the same, but Noongar is a subset of Indigenous Australians ) to clear parts of the bush ("clear undergrowth" / "burn vegetation") for specific purposes, including changing the flora and fauna ("promotes a diversity of new growth ... attracts animals" / "change the composition of plant and animal species"), promoting the growth of food plants ("promotes ... plant types that have a high food value" / "promoting the growth of ... edible ... plants"), and maintaining grazing lands ("maintain large tracts of grazing habitat" / "increasing the carrying capacity ... for ... marsupials"). The phrases I have quoted from the two articles clearly demonstrate that there is something in common, and that they are (at least indirectly or tangentially) related. The existence of a "see also" entry does not imply that the practice described by the target article is exactly the same, or performed by the same group of people, or in the same part of the country. If fire-stick farming has problems, fix them. If it's completely wrong and unsalvageable, propose its deletion. Merely refusing to link to it in a context that is self-evidently relevant is not the solution. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Mitch, I think you have casually skated across the topic to bring about a title concern. Could you read this text, inserted in support of what I contend is a 'narrative' and counterpoint (since removed from several articles), and consider some of the points raised those with some insights beyond the terms that are bandied about. cygnis insignis 00:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything in that text that either supports or contraindicates the proposal that fire-stick farming is related (including indirectly or tangentially) to cold fire. Is there a sentence or phrase I can search for? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep there is it explains that the proponents of "Fire stick farming" actual have no factual evidence to support the claim of Fire Stick farming. In WA the exact opposite is reality with no plant species lost, and in fact 500+ new species have been identified. FSF is part of the Histroy wars, it zero connection to Indigenous practices and lacks factual credibility it probably should be deleted as Pseudoscience.  Gnangarra 04:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep there is — Could you please quote the relevant part of the text that says that cold fire is completely different and not at all related to fire-stick farming; I'm still having trouble finding it.
 * With respect to species lost it does says


 * but the issue is not whether any species have gone extinct in the last 10 years (relative to 2012, when the article was written) - or in any time frame - the issue is whether fire-stick farming is similar to (at least indirectly or tangentially) cold fire, as they are both defined in their respective lead sections. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FSF ... probably should be deleted as Pseudoscience. — Feel free to WP:PROD it. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, I notice that the Noongar Wikipedia article, from which Cold fire (Noongar fire type) was translated, includes in its Additional Resources section a link to The "fire stick farming" hypothesis: Australian Aboriginal foraging strategies, biodiversity, and anthropogenic fire mosaics. It seems to me that if such a mention of fire stick farming is appropriate in the original Noongar article, it's probably appropriate for the English Wikipedia translation to mention its fire-stick farming article. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Mitch Ames and Gnan. I would like to have a go at WP:TNTing the Fire-stick farming article, but it will take me a week or two I think. Having read through its existing references and many more I have found, I think I can assuredly say that the current article is an embarrassing piece of scholarship. Yes I do believe that Cold fire (Noongar fire type) should be "See also"ed to Fire-stick farming, but also I can see why the current content is very misleading and unbalanced. I can also say that from what I have seen and read that the term "fire-stick farming" is absolutely notable. How it is written up though is altogether another matter. If you want to hold off on further debate until I have had a go? Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The last couple of hundred years of "fire-stick farmin'" is better documented, if the term only applies to the Australian continent. cygnis insignis 23:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. We can wait until we have a new version (or at least the stub of a re-write) of fire-stick farming, before linking to it from cold fire (Noongar fire type). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)