Talk:Gidhabal

Request for information
I'd be really interested to read more about this tribe, after reading the news today, but can find very little about them online... Frankie Roberto 21:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This page has been edited inappropriately, with the addition of questions (encyclopedias exist to answer questions, not to ask them). It is in urgent need of further editing, or removal. --Melba1 (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for removal
What the hell, how is this garbage still on Wikipedia? The author obviously has issues, this shit needs to be deleted or modified ASAP.
 * Actually the page can be removed because it needs merging. The title is not an aboriginal tribal name but an erroneous transcription of Giabal, for which we now have a properly formatted and sourced page. I will take whatever I can find here of use, little, and reposition it in that article. After which it should be erased.Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The proper way to do with is to elide my page Giabal and transfer its contents here, as I have now done.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Githabul is not an erroneous transcription of Giabal. The anthropologist Winterbotham erroneously records the name Gitabal for the Giabal. The Giabal people are from near the Toomwoomba area, North of Allora, while the Gidabal are south of Allora, over the border to Woodenbong. The Giabal were a Waka-Kabic speaking people.

Giabal: http://archives.samuseum.sa.gov.au/tindaletribes/giabal.htm Githabul: http://archives.samuseum.sa.gov.au/tindaletribes/kitabal.htm

Githabul is the preferred modern spelling used by the people. Your Giabal information will need to be removed. BlackfullaLinguist (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I had read those two entries, and had other work to do before making the obvious corrections to my erroneous merge. But a lot of the sources are contradictory and  there is considerable amount of confusion to be ironed out. Part of the problem is summed up by Margaret Sharpe.
 * "Quite early on in European contact times there is evidence of some identification of groups with places which only got onto the map after European settlement, e.g. town names such as Rathdowney, Boonah, Beaudesert, Casino and Kyogle. Particularly under Queensland policy many Bundjalung people were shifted from their ancestral territories. Those who were not moved to reserves much further north soon appeared to identify themselves by a town which was developed in their territory, which may or may not have been on the land their family had most close associations with. We therefore cannot take at face value statements on territories of different ‘tribes’. Generally statements which use the term ‘clan’ or ‘horde’ are less subject to misreading. We can assume that statements which describe the territory of the Gidabal as extending as far as Allora, and others which assign the western region to another group (Geinyon according to Woodenbong Gidabal people, who also claim it is a very different language) can be reconciled.1985 p.110"
 * In Crowley's dialect map, the Githabul are sliced between the Geinyan who are allocated the area from Allora to Killarney, and the Dinggabal to their south. That would challenge the idea that Githabul were as far north as Allora, as you affirm. This needs sorting out.
 * Contenporary statements following Mabo, with native title considerations and memories that have historically distinct clan identities confluescing, are to be treated warily in that part of an encyclopedia which deals with historical background. The basic sources must always come from experts who have consulted both contemporary descendents and, at the same time, show deep familiarity with the older written records.Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue seems to be what exactly are we referring to? The society that lodged the 'Githabul' native title claim, is not just from the Woodenbong community, but as can be seen on their claim maps, they claimed all the territory covered by Crowley's Dinggabal, and Galibal, and they have stated they are planning a QLD portion of their claim to Warwick/Allora. The same can be said of the society that lodged the 'Western Bundjalung' claim that covered all the territory of 4-5 of Crowley's dialects.
 * To me it seems that in this area, the largest social unit of their society, is the Dialect Clusters that Crowley describes, as we can reconcile these disparities when we realise that the Githabul claim covers (well plans to cover) the entire Condamine Upper-Clarence dialect cluster, and the Western Bundjalung covers the entire Middle Clarence Cluster. The society named as Bandjalang lodged successful claims over the southern portion of Crowley's Lower Richmond dialect cluster, while the northern portion has awaiting claims under the Widjabul Wia-bal People and the Byron Bay Bundjalung People. BlackfullaLinguist (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A linguist describes or reconstructs ideally the shape of a language before it died off. An historical ethnographer describes the nature of a society, its institutions, land and culture, before contact, and, in the history section, until it lost its cohesion. The 600+ articles deal primarily with the historically attested tribal units. Modern post Mabo claims are dealt with in the Native Title section, and regard essentially different realities where descendants of what were originally several, sometimes a dozen (as with those who now self-identify with the Martu Wangka), originally distinct identities, stake collective claims. It is, for example, well-attested that any Geinyan, Gidabal, Dhangabal, Wudjebal, Wehlubal, Bandjalung, Nyangbal, Wiyabal, Galibal, Minyangbalk, Yugambeh, Ngarahgwal etc., who without permission overstepped and trespassed into  a neighbouring tribal terrain did so at the risk of their lives. Write the articles in terms of contemporary rearrangements and it would erase these manifold historical realities from the map. Courts and claims are one thing, representing modern adjustments of a relatively short time span that conflate the anthropological record because the appellants are a new formation, so I've reserved them for the NNTT section.Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)