Talk:New South Wales

Naming of NSW
Hello all i reverted a recent edit because the previous version was more accurate and concise. We have the various versions of Cooks journals and he simply changed his mind regarding the name, as he did with various other place names.See Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

New South Welshmen
Hello all

An editor added "New South Welshmen" to the info box as a demonym. I reverted this because the cited sources did not support the statement. The first source was a humorous newspaper article, the point of which was that there was NOT a widely accepted demonym for the people of New South Wales. The second source was about the origin of another derogatory term for the people of NSW sometimes used by Rugby League supporters from Queensland. "New South Welshman" excludes half the population of the state and the cited sources do not establish that it is a widely accepted demonym.

@Bongoau28 Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Googling "New South Welshmen" returns quite a lot of hits. This one includes a list of people with a woman in it. My impression is that it's an older term that doesn't work so well today, but it's still around. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The "hit" you highlighted doesn't seem a very reliable source to me. Just because a word is "still around" doesn't make it a widely accepted demonym, especially among the female half of the population. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, and I appreciate your contribution to this discussion. My intention was not to provoke any controversy. However, as per Oxford Languages through Google's definition service, "New South Welshman" pertains to the "natives or residents of the Australian state of New South Wales." I acknowledge your concerns about the phrase "excluding half the population." In this specific context, the term "man" in "New South Welshman" is akin to its usage in the word "mankind." Ultimately, as per the Cambridge Dictionary, "Traditionally, we use man to refer to all human beings, male and female." Therefore, "New South Welshman" is an appropriate demonym to employ, irrespective of gender and/or sex. Bongoau28 (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be true that "traditionally" man was used to refer to all human beings, male or female, but you will find that many, probably the majority, of people now find it offensive. There is no need to include a demonym in the information box, and given that you have provided no reliable source showing that "New South Welshman" is still widely used and accepted as a demonym for the people of NSW, both male and female, I suggest that the least controversial solution is simply to leave the demonym blank. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your viewpoint, and I'd like to address the concerns you've raised. While it's true that the term "man" in certain contexts has garnered some controversy due to its historical connotations, it's important to note that the interpretation of language can be subjective and may vary among individuals. While some might find it offensive, there are others who still perceive it within the traditional, all-encompassing framework. Regarding the inclusion of a demonym in the information box, I understand the caution you're exercising. However, I'd like to suggest an alternative that could potentially strike a balance. Considering the evolving sensitivities around language, shall we consider using a term like "New South Welsh" as a compromise? This way, we can avoid any potential discomfort associated with the word "man" while still maintaining a recognisable and inclusive label for the people of New South Wales. By using "New South Welsh" in the demonym, we can respect both the historical usage of the term and the contemporary concerns about gender-neutral language. This approach not only acknowledges the complexity of language evolution but also ensures that the information we present remains accessible and respectful to a wide range of perspectives. Here's a reputable source from the Archives of National Library of Australia, specifically from the Ferguson Collection National Library, Canberra, displaying the term on it's title. If the people wish to dig through the citation they may consider themselves whether to use Welshman as a traditional alternate. Bongoau28 (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "New South Welsh" is even less used than "New South Welshman". I still think leaving the relevant part of the info box blank is the best alternative. It has been blank for quite some time. But let's see what others think. Perhaps a consensus will emerge. I don't think citing a source from 1867 helps your case very much. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Despite the sources on the Simple Wikipedia page, I would like to bring to your attention that the demonym for New South Wales has been a part of the page since January 29th, 2013. I kindly urge you to consider this longstanding presence. Given that over a decade has passed without any apparent negative consequences, it is reasonable to conclude that a public consensus has formed around the usage of the term "New South Welshman." Bongoau28 (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You should not reinstate a bold edit which has been reverted by another editor. The relevant policy is here. Please delete your most recent reinstatement of your preferred demonym and wait until a consensus emerges. If you don't, this could be considered disruptive editing. The simple wikipedia page is a separate document and probably most active editors don't even look at it. I haven't up to now. The point is that the demonym wasn't on the standard wikipedia page which we are discussing here. I would suggest that the simple wikipedia page should mirror the main page, not the other way around. But please revert your last edit and let others have their say. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I’m coming across as destructive as it's not my intention, I am new and am still trying to learn the reigns. I have removed it as per your wishes. Nonetheless I’ll be closely following the subject, but will refrain from making inputs to avoid impeding. Bongoau28 (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. You have an arguable position. I just think we should hear what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * As an Australian of mature years, I can remember using "New South Welshmen" long in the past, but not recently. These days I might say something a bit jokish such as "New South Welshie", but not in any formal situation. Mostly, I just avoid using such a noun by restructuring what I am about to say. I just did some Googling, and found nothing at all firm about what noun to use. I think a blank entry in the Infobox accurately reflects modern usage. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone put back the denonym "New South Welshman"without discussion. I have reverted it back to the previous consensus position. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

NZ and WA
Greetings! Regarding this revert, I was wondering what your concern was about accuracy? Territorial evolution of Australia and History of New Zealand do say that the colony of New Zealand started out as part of NSW, after some early settlements had already been established. I mention "Western Australia" because most readers won't know what "Swan River Colony" is referring to. -- Beland (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello there.
 * 1) There is too much detail about a minor event in NSW history. I have summarised it. The detail is covered in the main article on WA.
 * 2) There is debate on whether NZ was ever part of NSW. The instructions to the first 5 governors of NSW only refer to "offshore islands". If NZ was intended as one of the offshore islands, why did the southern limit of jurisdiction cut off half of the south Island of NZ? The NSW supreme court had jusisdiction over NZ but only because it was the nearest court able to dispense British justice. This is discussed in Beverly Kingston. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you be OK with changing "Swan River Colony" to "Western Australia", then, since the latter has been used for a much longer time period? That would make the intro more comprehensible without adding any detail.
 * Do you have a quote from Beverly Kingston that makes the argument that NZ was never part of NSW? It appears even the NZ government thinks at least part of the country was annexed to NSW in 1839.. There is no mention of any dispute about this annexation being valid under British law on Territorial evolution of Australia, History of New Zealand, Governor-General of New Zealand, George Gipps, Colony of New South Wales, or New Zealand...none of those articles cite Beverly Kingston. It seems like if there's a real dispute, all those articles would need to be changed. -- Beland (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the lead? You can't change "The Swan River Colony" to "Western Australia" because they aren't the same thing. Western Australia was briefly administered by NSW (although it was never part of NSW). The Swan River Colony was never administered by NSW.
 * As for NZ, the discussion is whether NZ was part of NSW before 1840 when it became part of NSW for a few months as a temporary measure. This isn't a major part of NSW history. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI - discussion on Talk:Government of New South Wales
Just spreading widely, I've started a discussion on Talk:Government of New South Wales to review the organisation of NSW government-related articles. Please feel free to review and input :) Tim (Talk) 06:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)