Talk:Kabi Kabi people

Need more dates
This article would benefit from additional detail. For example, these sentences would benefit from a date:
 * "The smaller clan groups have recently separated into sub-groups" would benefit from a "since when" date;
 * "Large slave trading companies operated from this area"
 * "Buroinjin was a game played by the Kabi"; and,
 * "There also have been genocidal acts within the region, some of which are recorded, and some not well documented" - this sentence would benefit from dates and references.


 * I am not aware of well documented evidence of slave trading and large companies etc. I suspect that these statements are large false, or greatly exagerated. Without further proof in references to outside sources I will remove these. If you wish to reinstate these please do so with expert refernces. SauliH 23:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The slave trade is most likely referring to the Sugar Slaves: Australian South Sea Islanders who were taken from their island homes and forced to work for low or no wages in this area. Descendants of Australian South Sea Islanders on the Sunshine Coast have close ties to Kabi Kabi peoples through their shared history of "employment" in the sugar industry, family bonds and marginalization from Australian society.

Map?
As someone who has never been to the region, people like me would benefit from a map of the area (historically and/or currently) occupied by the Kabi. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to above enquiry i suggest you sit with elders of that clan group and if they want to tell they will if they dont they wont(there is some information they can share with you and there is alot that has to stay within that clan group). it is all about how you present yourself and what you want the information for. as for dates we never recorded them or written in a diary when the killings happened because at that time we could not read i write your language but it never left there memories. dates were kept by seasons and not in the way you know seasons.

for more information please find respected elders of that clan group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.72.222 (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Gubbi Gubbi???
I believe that 'Gubbi Gubbi' is not the correct name to use (alone) in this article, the actual (original) spelling is 'Kubbi Kubbi'. Below is a write-up in the Rotary Magazine 'Keeping Intouch - Vol 20, Issue 10'.

''Our town is named after the possum. Cooroy means possum in Kubbi Kubbi language, an expert on these things told me K is the correct way to spell the tribal name. They came from the Mary River Basin. People on the coast are claiming the Kubbi Kubbi. A different language speaking tribe lived on the coast. Cooroy should be spelt with a K for Kooroy. The powers- to- be who named places changed it to C and then it became corrupted to G.'' Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 08:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

How do we change the title from Kabi people to Gubbi Gubbi Peoples as Kabi has been used incorrectly. The title should be Gubbi Gubbi PeoplesMelJB (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Rainbow Serpent
Previous text stated "The Kabi Kabi/Gubbi Gubbi people do not believe in the Rainbow Serpent". I have removed this due to conflicting information in the Kabi Kabi First Nation's recent Native Title application. See page 21 where it states "ethnohistorical sources discuss a set of beliefs held by the claimants, in common with neighbouring groups, regarding the power of the Rainbow Serpent and related beings, who are inherent in the cosmology of the landscape of the region".

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gubbi Gubbi people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517232411/http://www.triballink.com.au/index.php/gubbigubbi to http://www.triballink.com.au/index.php/gubbigubbi

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Kabi Kabi are a different tribe
Hi, The Kabi Kabi and the Gubbi Gubbi tribes are two different tribes, the names have nothing in common, as I just got explained by Kabi elders. I suggest a change in that article.

Please see following references:

A fairly accurate map made in the late 1800's by John Mathew who lived on Kabi Country and who studied and documented Kabi language, history and culture in: https://archive.org/details/tworepresentati00math/page/n71

This also mentions Kabi: E. G. Heap (B.A.) 'In The Wake of the Raftsmen: A Survey of Early Settlement in the Maroochy District up to the Passing of the Crown Lands Alienation Act, 1868', in Queensland Heritage, Volume 1, No. 5, pp.9-20, (Brisbane, State Library of Queensland, 1965/6) available here: https://www.gympie.qld.gov.au/documents/40008872/40011644/WildheartBountifulLand.pdf

The location of the Kabi Language group and Tribes was also mapped by Norman Tindale: 'Map showing the distribution of the Aboriginal tribes of Australia', (Adelaide,Govt. Photolithographer, 1940). Available from http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-230054338/view

Noosa website referring to Kabi Kabi people as the correct people for that area: https://www.visitnoosa.com.au/our-custodians

Photo reference in the National Library of Australia: https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/191351845?q&versionId=208823367

Wikigetsme123 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, those references support the location of the Kabi Kabi/Gubbi Gubbi people in Queensland, not the existence of two separate peoples, one in NSW, as you claimed in your edit summary. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink I got told different. Gubbi Gubbi is apparently a tribe, with some members possibly a part of the Kabi Kabi Speaking Nation, but Kabi Elders believe members of the Gubbi Gubbi tribe came to Kabi Country with Landsborough the surveyor, and some .were 'removed' to Kabi country from NSW during early colonial 'settlement'. Some 'Gubbi Gubbi' people launched a failed native title claim over Kabi land years ago, and unfortunately their name has been wrongly used by some writers since then. This page 'Kabi" addresses the Kabi Kabi tribe, and we wish you wont mess with it, as itself and its sources are verified on Wikipedia. Deleting the text and redirecting it is a violation of Wikipedia policies, and will be reported. Wikigetsme123 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks to me as if there's been some edit-warring going on at the Kabi page (which has been technically incorrectly re-created as an article, btw - the talk page still redirects here) which not only lacks appropriate wikilinks and doesn't abide by a number of Wiki style conventions, but does not properly explain the context and relationship to the Gubbi Gubbi/Kabi Kabi people. As far as I can see, the content contained therein can be incorporated within this article and mentioned in Gubbi Gubbi language, Butchulla and perhaps mentioned in Wakka Wakka language and Wakka Wakka. AIATSIS is seen as the authority for these language and people groups and spelling, as they have already studied and synthesised Tindale and all of the other sources you have mentioned. What you are proposing looks like WP:OR. I would suggest that you self-revert the Kabi article until a proper consensus is reached. You are a new editor and need to understand how things work around here before insisting that your version is correct. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * As an uninvolved editor, can I remind everyone of our policy of Neutral point of view. When we have a content dispute, Wikipedia is not here to decide what is "the truth" but to present to the reader the case for the various points of view and let the reader draw what conclusions they choose. We are here to educate our readers about things, not tell them what to think/believe. Here we have two points of view: the Gubbi Gubbi and Kabi are completely separate or that they are somehow interrelated. If I interpret the discussion above correctly, there are sources that support both points of view. If we were to rename this article Gubbi Gubbi and Kabi people and redirect Gubbi Gubbi people and Kabi people to it, we then have one place to present the two points of view. We cannot do that with two separate articles. Wikigetsme123, I appreciate that some elders in one group have expressed a strong view on this issue to you. Is this view expressed in a published source we can cite or is it entirely based on a conversation which we cannot cite? Similarly what do you know of the views of the elders of the other group? The other question that occurs to me is in what time frame are we talking about? Is it an issue of currently being separate or being separate for all time or something in between? Don't argue about what's "right" or "wrong" (or engaging in wikilawyering) but rather to build consensus on how we assist our readers in better understanding the issue as a whole. Kerry (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect that Gubbi Gubbi and Kabi people is not the way to go... There's two current native title claims for Kabi Kabi peoples -- Kabi Kabi Undambi Area Claim (QC2016/011) and Kabi Kabi First Nation Traditional Owners Native Title Claim Group (QC2018/007) -- and none for Gabbi Gabbi (a previous application was withdrawn..). From the registration test decision in the first claim:
 * "[3] The Kabi Kabi (also sometimes referred to throughout the material as Gabbi Gabbi) is comprised of local groups with defined areas of country within a shared regional society that extends across the geographic area between the Logan River in the south to Port Curtis in the north and west to the Condamine River. These groups are often defined and distinguished by reference to their language and are referred to in the historical records as tribes that existed within a broader ‘nation.’"
 * ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and . At a quick glance, it still looks to me as if the terms are interchangeable, with some disagreement over the naming and between certain groups. I'll just also point out that the spelling "Gabbi Gabbi" referred to in the document above seems to be a typo, as there is no mention of "Gabbi", but several of "Gubbi" in it. And this site mentions John Mathew's work with the Kabi Kabi/Gubbi Gubbi. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC) p.s. Also fyi . Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Kabi article should be deleted. Is there a template to request that? It is based on Original research using three primary documents written by early authors who mention 'Kabi' but whose references to Kabi are subsumed under the GubbiGubbi/KabiKabi complex by ethographers like Tindalke, and by AIATSIS. With due respect, one has to be very careful with what this or that contemporary group may affirm or claim: often these claims and counterclaims arise from land disputes between people of Aboriginal descent, with riven internal politics and competing interests. Since these collective interests are represented by AIATSIS, their conflation of GubbiGubbi/KabiKabi as alternative names for the same general historical reality should be deferred to. Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There are two issues here: are these 2 distinct peoples (RS's suggest not, so claims that they are need confirmable sourcing) and which is the preferred name. We used to have a lot of content forks on Australian nations under variant spellings, and that's definitely something to avoid.

For the 2nd, since "Kabi Kabi" and "Gubbi Gubbi" are just orthographic variants, I don't think it matters much, and neither is common enough for COMMONNAME to be decisive. Personally, I think "Kabi" looks better than "Gubbi", which IMO is too close to English "grubby". So if it were my nation, I'd prefer the article be moved to "Kabi Kabi". — kwami (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts and thank you @Hydronium Hydroxide for the investigation into title claims. As I understand there are two pending land title claims for Kabi Kabi and none for Gabbi Gabbi (a previous application was withdrawn. Therefore we are closer to Kabi Kabi and the Kabi page should have a right to be online. If that is too conflicting for the readers than let it be conflicting, as that reflects the situation. There are clear indications that this two tribes belong to two language groups. And in addition one is referring to older maps, the other to newer ones for their entitlement. As the Kabi created that page and don't refer on it to other tribes, they don't need consent from anybody to delete the redirection to the Gubbi Gubbi page and to reestablish that page. I reversed the deletion again. Please leave that page untouched unless an experienced editor is so kind to bring it back to its full functionality. We will be back with more information. Wikigetsme123 (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have just provided a secondary source that explicitly says that as of 1998 the Kabi Kabi preferred to refer to themselves as Gubbi Gubbi. That is the problem with kwami's suggestion (I myself, from a linguistic perspective also prefer KabiKabi, but that is neither here nor there) This kind of ethnographic field evidence trumps any amount of web assertions, or hearsay from assorted informants. What you are asserting doesn't warrant a distinct web page, but strong sources that assert that since 1998 there has emerged a group self-identifying as Kabi Kabi which perceives itself as distinct from the Gubbi Gubbi. This sort of mess is all over a lot of recent news reports, but doesn't facilitate clarity unless one has studies of quality of the issues.Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is best resolved simply by updating the thin Native Title claim section, for the two applications post 2013. I note, reading the first, that the majority of the informants cited for the Kabi Kabi claim use Gubbi Gubbi (thus written or transcribed) when referring to their Kabi Kabi claims. Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ,,  and others: Thanks for further input. Just a note firstly to let you know that I started to have a look at the native title claims and started to document them, but have run out of steam. I'll get back to that tomorrow. Also tried to rearrange the article for logical progression, although the result is still debatable, so feel free to tweak further. I seem to recall some time ago that there was a consensus to use the AIATSIS AUSTLANG spelling for the language and people names, although don't know where to find that or if it is written up somewhere? I have certainly changed a few myself when I have encountered discontinued spelling. It is not unusual to find different individuals or organisations using different names, which presents a problem for Wikipedia, and as AIATSIS is a well-respected organisation, it seems like a reasonable position to adopt. But there does seem to be quite a bit of recent use of Kabi Kabi (including Kabi Kabi Aboriginal Corporation, registered 2019), and there are double the number of Google hits for this name than Gubbi Gubbi, so perhaps this is something to take into account? (Wikigetsme123, I still see no clear justification for a separate article for Kabi.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We are not dealing with different historic tribes, but with a split in perceptions by various groups of descendants, in the latter of land claims. One can get an inkling of the mess this sort of political struggle (wholly legitimate, I need hardly add) creates for the description of what were formerly known as 'tribes'. The AIATSIS data is here and both I am Kwami have taken this as normative for the titles and definitions of these pages, given that it is the major and consensual cultural and archival guardian of information on Australian peoples. If you can get the time to look into the native title matter, I think the issue raised can be resolved simply by adding the relevant Kabi Kabi claims to that section. The Kabi article is a non-starter, since it has no basis in any ethnographic records from 1788-1998, as far as I can see (since over that period Gubbi Gubbi/Kabi Kabi were understood by both the peoples, their descendants and ethnographers to be variants of the same ethnplinguistic reality.Nishidani (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "… I am Kwami …"? this changes everthing! ~ cygnis insignis 13:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Long story short, I have now detailed the native title claims and names, and created a whole section dedicated to naming up at the top, given the amount of discussion and disagreement about the name. I will leave others to discuss or edit further, and might contact someone at AIATSIS for further opinion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Are "Kabi Kabi" and "Gubbi Gubbi" pronounced the same? Could someone who knows how please add pronunciation like the lead of Kaurna language to both Gubbi Gubbi people and Gubbi Gubbi language? Kaurna is another example that the English spelling sometimes used a K and sometimes a G. --Scott Davis Talk 11:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)--Scott Davis Talk 11:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between what the pronunciations might have been, and how they might be transcribed phonetically, in the period when first language fluency existed in those communities, and the situation today. Their 'k's and 'g's are not our ks and gs necessarily. One needs documentation for that kind of intricacy.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink Yes, to contact someone at AIATSIS for further opinion is a good idea! My interests: I am not associated with a tribe, not even born in AUS (apologizes for my unsuitable English) but I am helping the author of the Kabi article Dianekm. As I understand, by respecting their elders, 'younger' members can not discuss topics or speak on behalf of their tribe.

I stumbled over Kabi article existence when asking Dianekm for references for the "Gympie Pyramid' article. In Gympie Kabi people are fighting for their sacred site. That fight is 40 years old and shows the dedication of the Kabi to their land. I can understand that it hurts them to get their representation article deleted here and redirected to a tribe, that, as I am told, not even belong to the same language group. And I stumbled over the old "Gympie Pyramid' article when looking for the polygonal wall.

My logical understanding here tells me that AIATSIS had a Gubbi Gubbi title claim over SEQLD dismissed, and has two Kabi Kabi claims pending but not decided on. Looks to me that AIATSIS acknowledge the Kabi Kabi claim but is concerned to decide on it, because they could be 1. embarrassed to have done wrong to the Kabi tribe for so long, maybe assuming there was nobody alive anymore and 2. that would mean reprinting of how many official books and maps? So they maybe simply don't finalize their process?

Also Kabi Kabi refer to older maps Gubbi Gubbi to newer ones. What would that tell us? Possibly that sometime in the last decades someone made the mistake... I am told (quote) ‘The Gubbi Gubbi name on the "Aboriginal language' map was made after 'Eve Faisal' made the Gubbi Gubbi claim, and it was never changed after her claim was dropped.'

I am also told (quote) that Kabi Kabi / Gubbi Gubbi are different language groups because 'In Kabi language 'u' is pronounced 'oo'. This is noted in early word lists, so if people callingthemselfs Gubbi Gubbi, pronounce the 'u' as u in cup, that is a good indication of a seperate language group.' Further I am told (quote)'The people in the Kabi Kabi native titel group have no tribal authority to represent Kabi, or claim what is clearly historically documented as Kabi countryprior to Gubbi Gubbi people moving here.'

We will be back with more references and looking forward to what AIATSIS thoughts are on this. Wikigetsme123 (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The problems are several. Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources preferably from neutral scholars to document these pages. (b) Personal information not yet the subject of mainstream newspaper reportage can't be used (c) Wikipedia cannot be used by groups to promote their cause, however valid (d) editors cannot lend themselves, however sincere their concerns, to representing or acting as spokespersons for such groups. One can only note, as has been done, that claims have been officially registered, since these claims at written up in official sources. All the rest, what some elders or groups assert, unless it gets mainstream coverage, remain unusable claims with, so far, no encyclopedic value. If you look at the pages associated with descendants of tribes who lived in the Canberra area, you will grasp the difficulties and danger of such situations. Linguists decide matters of phonology: the Gubbi Gubbi /Kabi Kabi languages and dialects (apart from some partial knowledge of the Butchulla dialect) are extinct.  Nishidani (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note to, firstly to support Nishidani's general guidance, and secondly, I think that you may be confusing AIATSIS with the National Native Title Tribunal. NNTT administers the native title claims, which are often decided after very protracted legal proceedings and a thorough assessment of a huge amount of information as well as procedural (technical) issues with how the claim has been submitted. If you look at all of the citations I've added, you will get some idea of this. Wikipedia cannot possibly convey the complexity of of each claim, or attempt to represent the pros and cons of each. AIATSIS maintains the language database, and (if they get back to me at all) are only likely to comment on the spelling aspect. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * To be clear, Are you using "Kabi" (8 times in your last post) and "Kabi Kabi" (five times) to mean two different things or the same thing? You clearly intend to say that it/they are different to "Gubbi Gubbi" (7 times), but it is not clear if you regard them as disjoint, or if one is a subset of another?
 * I am not a linguist, and really only speak one language, but I am aware that the sounds (phonemes) that are interchangeable in one language can mean different things in another language. As I understand it, the sounds that in English are distinct 'g' and 'k' are essentially the same sound in (at least some) Pama–Nyungan languages. To native English speakers, some might hear 'g' and some might hear 'k' when the speakers think they have made the same sound. In much the same way, English 'l' and 'r' can sound the same for some East Asian language groups. --Scott Davis Talk 12:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @Laterthanyouthink thanks the explaining the differences of AIATSIS and NNTT to me.

@ScottDavis I am new to that topic, just trying to give all the info I received while trying to understand how all connects. As I understand and got told, Kabi Kabi and Gubbi Gubbi are two different language groups, where the Kabi tribe belongs to the Kabi Kabi language group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoever told you they were two different 'language groups' got things wrong. Dialects within a language, to simplify, do not apply to different language groups. Aussies and (non-Maori), Kiwis and (non-Gaelic speaking) Scots don't belong to different language groups, though the phonemic, syntactical and idiomatic distinctions are many. They belong to the English-speaking language group.Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * and others, I have had some fairly detailed linguistic advice from AIATSIS, and will attempt to extract and pass on the bits that are relevant to our discussion, but firstly just try to summarise and/or rephrase what several editors have said above. Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and none of the editors here are representing or favouring one spelling or interpretation of tribal/nation divisions over another. We are all trying to reach consensus on a way of describing a people who are defined by their language (or language group, if you like). We cannot support a separate article stating that there is a separate group of people under a different name or spelling, unless a reliable source exists, and so far we don't have a source which suggests or confirms that "Kabi" or "Kabi Kabi" people are of a different group/tribe from "Gubbi Gubbi" people, and Wikipedia's names are based on language groups. It has been the convention on Wikipedia for many years now to use the spelling as it currently is on AIATSIS's Austlang database for both the people and the language, of each language group, which is why this article has this name. (It is worth mentioning however that according to AIATSIS, the data for this language are very sparse.) At risk of labouring the point, I would like to assure the people represented by Wikigetsme that this choice is not based on choosing one group over another, but the article is meant to represent all of the people(s) who make up the language or language group known as Gubbi Gubbi or Kabi Kabi. We do not know the details of family lines or oral histories here, but can only go on reliable published sources. This is one of the limitations of Wikipedia - it can only reflect what is written, which makes it difficult when desribing peoples with long histories that have been passed down orally, and languages that have since been lost. We have to rely on what was transcribed, sometimes a century or more ago, about these languages. Fortunately for us wp editors, there are experts, such as the linguists at AIATSIS, who have analysed and synthesised much of this information, along with more recent field work done with Indigenous people. The AIATSIS linguist said that they are open to hearing new information from the community, and they do keep an eye on community activities and other sources to review their spellings, and adjust if necessary. So perhaps, Wikigetsme, Dianekm could contact them?


 * I have lots of fairly detailed information on linguistic aspects, but as this comment has already got very long, I hope I can convey the bits or examples that are most meaningful to the discussion at hand. As the language names are based on the sounds of the words as expreseed by the particular Indigenous group, but also how it sounds to an English-speaker's ear, these may be "translated" (not the strictly correct word, but I am trying to choose terms more familiar in common English) onto paper in different ways; "Gubbi" is a spelling based on English conventions, while "Kabi" has an allophonic derivation. The words have the same sounds, no matter how they are spelt. As  has pointed out above, G and K are not the same sounds as they are in English. ("This is also the case for b/p; t/d/; th/dh; tj/dj; rt/rd and k/g. It doesn’t matter what the pronunciation of these pairs are in a word, the meaning won’t change as it does in English (eg pat vs bat or pad vs pat).")


 * There are both social and (language) structural reasons for both spellings. "Most English speakers/readers would come up with the same pronunciation for each version. AUSTLANG is primarily a languages database and thesaurus. The material we have in the AIATSIS collection produced by the community regarding this language group is Gubbi Gubbi, which is also our understanding of community preference." There are many other examples of variant spellings, such as Dhanggati / Dunghutti. Wikipedia has to choose one name for an article, but we also create redirects so that all variant spellings lead to the same language or people, and the variant spellings are usually prominently displayed in the first sentence of the language.


 * I hope that this makes sense, Wikigetsme, and that Dianekm understands our position here. (And please chime in, anyone else, to clarify anything I have not made clear!) Oh, and btw, here is another respected language source that uses the Gubbi Gubbi spelling: Gambay, a map produced by First Languages Australia. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * P.S. I think I will just also convey what I think is very good advice from the AIATSIS linguist: "Indigenous cultural practice will often not fit into categories proposed by non-Indigenous systems. There’s a need to be flexible, work with the people and be prepared to refine those categories". Wikipedia needs to find a way to acknowledge all Indigenous peoples without judgement regarding who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’. All input is welcome! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this - plus spending so much time on explaining it.Nickm57 (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's distressing but there is no group that speaks GabbiGabbi/KabiKabi,- the language is extinct,- so we cannot speak of a language group definition any more. Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)




 * @Laterthanyouthink Thank you for the explanation but I do not agree when you say 'find a way to acknowledge all Indigenous peoples without judgement'.

Wikipedia is everything than neutral in the way the articles are written and maintained. Editors seem to 'sit' on articles and enjoy the power they have when pushing forward and backward certain arguments. I asked the year long 'caretaker' of the 'Gympie Pyramid' article @Nickm57 (at least he was involved in early discussions about that article years ago, and became active as soon I deleted 2 dead www links and a wrong photo) by simply reversing 'newbie actions' in the WP tradition. In that article which I attempted to rewrite out of a poor small article in which the Kabi tribe, whos sacred site is under thread, wasn't mentioned. I finally was allowed to post a new version, @DougWeller came along and edited, deleted major parts but also communicated why. Nothing happened to the old article for years and now they are editing like crazy. Whats happening here?

Regarding 'neutrality' on WP I see it much worse with the Gubbi Gubbi article. I can not imagine that the setup of a Kabi WP page, deleting the text, if there was any, and redirecting it to the Gubbi Gubbi article, is an acceptable standard on WP. No explanation on @Dianekm or Kabi Talk page! This is how rude some are allowed to act on WP. And further aggression we find in the first sentence of the article, focusing again on the one troubling tribe, by writing 'This article is about the ethnic group in Australia. For other uses, see Kabi (disambiguation).' No, this article is not about the ethic group of Kabi. Why at all are you using a 'Kabi' page, if not only trying to suppress the knowledge/existence of that tribe?

This was to show that there is great space for editors to 'sit; on pages to ensure their view is shown.

Now to the idea of defining ethic groups by language and not by culture and traditional land occupation. Anybody keen on stating that all people in GB/Ireland/USA are of the same group because they all speak English and therefore should be only presented by one common WP article?

This is nonsense and I call the lengthily discussion into it distraction. @Laterthanyouthink states without reference The material we have in the AIATSIS collection produced by the community regarding this language group is Gubbi Gubbi, which is also our understanding of community preference.

Who is meant by 'our understanding'? And the 'Language material produced by the community'? In what time frame, the 80' and 90'? We know, new migrating arrivals start in Sydney and Melbourne; settled or retired Aussies move up to coast to SEQLD, and not further than Noosa. Bundaberg is prepared for years but still waiting for its boom. So in that theory Gubbi Gubbbi associated people move for decades into Kabi Kabi claimed territory, and this is going to determine who gets the title for traditional land? That argument can be easily ... 'dismissed' as the NNTT decided.

Why does Noosa council thinks they are operating on Kabi Kabi land? I will have to contact NNTT and the council and ask them about their decision findings. If a title claim over SEQLD is dismissed, than I think it should be reflected on WP and at least a Kabi page should be allowed, in which they can state, that their traditional land is 150km north to 100km south of Noosa. I am waiting for any thoughts about that dismissal from you gentleman? Does the quietness around the NNTT ruling show on which site you sit? Here a link to a Courier Mail artier explaining NNTTs claim status https://www.noosanews.com.au/news/business-as-usual-as-native-title-claim-proceeds/3266968/

Wikigetsme123 (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Pemission for Changes Please
The high court of Australia has thrown out the "Gubbi Gubbi" land claims for many years, and, before the Gubbi Gubbi group came along, Kabi Kabi was the known word used throughout the Noosa, Gympie and Sunshine Coast area. May I Please have permission to change the Gubbi Gubbi words to Kabi Kabi without anyone changing them. Thanks In Advance. SavageCabbages (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , no editor can give you "permission" - that's not how Wikipedia works. Please stop edit-warring and read the links in the welcome panel on your talk page, paying particular attention to WP:RS & WP:RS. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

High court deems Gubbi Gubbi as fiction
Let me get this straight, Kabi Kabi is the original spelling that has been used since the early settlers. If you look back on this articles history the original page was Kabi Kabi, 15 years ago. Gubbi Gubbi is fictional and new, Eve Fesl and her gubbi gubbi group had a lot to do with it. Even the high court of Australia dismissed the gubbi gubbi land claims as they were found to be fictitious. Link is here if anyone wants 'reliable information:' http://www.nntt.gov.au/searchRegApps/NativeTitleClaims/RegistrationDecisionDocuments/2017/March%202017/QC2013_003-2%2020032017.pdf

Cheers SavageCabbages (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Look. The high court did not say the ethnonym Gubbi Gubbi is a fiction as opposed to turning down a claim by a group using that spelling. You are ruining your own case, so I'll do some legwork for you, citing the Author's note to Phil Jarratt's recent book on the Noosa heads. Part of this reflects squabbles between different descent groups. 'What's in a name'. The two terms refer to the same 'mob'. I wouldn't oppose a name change to Kabi Kabi on present evidence, but you need to persuade others that this is now the default term for all claimants to title in that area.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

All the new claims in the area from 2017 have been from the Kabi Kabi elders and people. Kabi Kabi is being used on the councils websites and on signs throughout the noosa national park and others in the area. SavageCabbages (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, there is a conflict among various descent groups, all squabbling over the 'correct' representation of the name. One group calls itself Gubbi Gubbi, the other Kabi Kabi. Wikipedia cannot meddle with these political rifts, but simply state what the literature states. You are using original research to endorse one of the two groups as the only group. So we state the two names, and 'leave the rest to Providence and Paddy McGinty's goat.' Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Moving to Kabi Kabi
Kabi Kabi is the traditional name for this group of indigenous people. The federal court has deemed gubbi gubbi as fiction, read some of the articles i added recently. Thanks SavageCabbages (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The federal court has not deemed that spelling of the name a fiction - you are not quoting the sources correctly. The current application has not been decided yet (and even if it is, this does not mean that Wikipedia adopts this spelling). I understand that there has been a longrunning dispute among various groups who claim to represent the nation, but the spelling used for native title applications does not determine what is used by Wikipedia. There are many different spellings of every language and group, so Wikipedia has adopted the convention of using the AIATSIS spelling of the language for both the language and the people. If you have an issue with the spelling, you need to take it up with AIATSIS, not Wikipedia. I looked into this quite thoroughly some time ago (adding the Native title section after trawling through them all), and found that both versions were being used across the internet. This is not about the people, it is merely a spelling variant. There are many cases where the native title or current Aboriginal corporation spelling is different from the AIATSIS/ Wikipedia spelling. And as explained before, you don't just decide to do something, note it on the talk page and then do it. You await consensus from several other editors. IF everyone decides that this is the way to go as an exception to our usual convention, then that's fine. But acting unilaterally and persistently reverting others' changes is only going to bring you sanctions. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Some years ago, a linguistics expert reviewed all 660+ Aborginal articles and in dozens of cases shifted the name I assigned to each to the default term employed by AIATSIS, and as Laterthanyouthink notes, this is what several editors have concurred with or informally agreed to. We stick to AIATSIS until an authoritative  source tells us otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone and protected this article against unilateral moves. Graham 87 10:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Kabi Kabi vs Gubbi Gubbi redux
With the recent Federal Court ruling that the Kabi Kabi People (sic) have been awarded native title in a significant chunk of SE Queensland, does this change the weighting given to the AIATSIS spelling of this article (but not currently Gubbi Gubbi language) over WP:COMMONNAME, etc, now that there is official recognition given to the other transliteration? Additionally, note that "The AIATSIS Summit 2022 was held on Kabi Kabi Country ", so even AIATSIS are using "Kabi Kabi" for the people. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to a name change, as long as you can provide two good sources as above to warrant it, without prejudice to the Gubbi Gubbi heteronym. Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw that this morning, and was eventually going to get here myself, but thank you for raising this again. They do seem to be used interchangeably these days, with many sources giving both spellings. As both NNTT and the Kabi Kabi Aboriginal Corporation use "Kabi Kabi", along with the AIATSIS summit, I don't mind a change at this point either. (Note that in the document accompanying that AIATSIS summit, there is a Gubbi Gubbi Dance Troupe - so I think that both are regarded as acceptable.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2024

 * 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Gubbi Gubbi people → Kabi Kabi people – Per above discussion and new information added to the article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.