Talk:Wonnarua

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Wonnarua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091017211607/http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/page/default.asp?site=2&page=TIN_Tribal&level=3&code=4&item=E5 to http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/page/default.asp?site=2&page=TIN_Tribal&level=3&code=4&item=E5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Fix
Fix the details re language using Robert Miller, for startersNishidani (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Coastal, not inland?
Geoff Ford in his 2010 Master's Thesis "[|Darkiñung Recognition]: An Analysis of the Historiography for the Aborigines from the Hawkesbury-Hunter Ranges to the Northwest of Sydney" claims that Wonerua / Wannerawa / Wannungine apply to the coastal people (the so-called 'Awabakal' and 'Guringai'), and that those inland were Darkinyung. Further the Kamillaroi had penetrated across the Liverpool Ranges into the Upper Hunter.

He cites Gunson (1974), saying that Wurm and Cappell had found the language reported by Robert Miller to be the same as that studied by Threkeld. His view is that Smith was at best mistakenly confusing the coastal and inland groups, and at worst making stuff up (lifting the language information from Threkeld's work which had already been published). Everybody since has taken their information from Smith, or from Fawcett who copied Smith.

The main section if the thesis covering this is pp. 351–356.

Any thoughts how to incorporate this contrasting view into the article, in a balanced way?

— Pelagic (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey Pelagic, I note the current Wonnarua section sources Norman Tindale 1974, where Tindale sources Miller in Curr, 1887; Mathews, 1897 (Gr. 6430), 1898 (Gr. 6468); Fawcett, 1898; Science of Man, 1899; Enright, 1901; and Tindale, 1940 ... without having reviewed Geoff Ford's masters work .. if there is, as you say .. some variation in the location of this language groups core country and extent, then maybe this country section could be expanded to include a discussion by source of the variation/ differences in the estimated location of this language group's (now possible locally indigenous ethnic group) country?  The 2010 variation by Geoff Ford seems relatively recent and may be worth seeing if there is any other local records and reports of a living/existing Wonnarua ethnic group??  Bruceanthro (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC):
 * Pelagic, I now see, sourced in the article, reference to a current living locally indigenous Wonnarua having made public claim to their country, the publicly declared extent of which ought perhaps also be included in any expansion.. here:
 * Hi, Bruceanthro. Sorry for not responding.  As I read into Ford's thesis, I started to get the impression that there wasn't as much new information as I had hoped.  I've been meaning to come back and revisit the topic, but was feeling fairly discouraged that there may never be much historical evidence to work from (everything seems to derive from the conflicting accounts of Mathews, Miller, and Smith).  And I don't have access to academic libraries.  It seems that a big motivator these days is different groups of descendants competing to establish native-title claims based on scant evidence.  I'll have a look at the links you've provided, thanks. Pelagic (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bruceanthro. Sorry for not responding.  As I read into Ford's thesis, I started to get the impression that there wasn't as much new information as I had hoped.  I've been meaning to come back and revisit the topic, but was feeling fairly discouraged that there may never be much historical evidence to work from (everything seems to derive from the conflicting accounts of Mathews, Miller, and Smith).  And I don't have access to academic libraries.  It seems that a big motivator these days is different groups of descendants competing to establish native-title claims based on scant evidence.  I'll have a look at the links you've provided, thanks. Pelagic (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bruceanthro. Sorry for not responding.  As I read into Ford's thesis, I started to get the impression that there wasn't as much new information as I had hoped.  I've been meaning to come back and revisit the topic, but was feeling fairly discouraged that there may never be much historical evidence to work from (everything seems to derive from the conflicting accounts of Mathews, Miller, and Smith).  And I don't have access to academic libraries.  It seems that a big motivator these days is different groups of descendants competing to establish native-title claims based on scant evidence.  I'll have a look at the links you've provided, thanks. Pelagic (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarification please
In the section headed "Language", can someone explain the sentence "Ghuthung is spoken from Biripi Worimi, and Guringai is the Language belt"? What is "Biripr Worimi"? What is a "language belt"? Matthew C. Clarke 03:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi - it looks like garbage introduced by this revision - could you please copy and paste from the previous version and fix it, please? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Since the facts are unclear and no citations have been provided, I will reword some of that earlier revision and wait to see who might add some expertise later. Matthew C. Clarke