Jump to content

Talk:Goulburn: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:


== Citing of sources required ==
== Citing of sources required ==

There is no mention that Goulburn is part of the the traditional land of the Gundungara people. It SHOULD say that.


The original version of this article included the text: ''There is little information available on the local Aborigines. However it is clear that there was, in general, intense and violent conflict over European settlement of the south of NSW until the 1840s and 1850s. On the shore of Lake George, to the south, a group of whites shot a entire tribe and left the skeletons to bleach in the sun.'' Since that edit the paragraph has been wikified but otherwise unchallenged. I do not think it should remain without sources.--[[User:AYArktos|A Y Arktos]] 07:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The original version of this article included the text: ''There is little information available on the local Aborigines. However it is clear that there was, in general, intense and violent conflict over European settlement of the south of NSW until the 1840s and 1850s. On the shore of Lake George, to the south, a group of whites shot a entire tribe and left the skeletons to bleach in the sun.'' Since that edit the paragraph has been wikified but otherwise unchallenged. I do not think it should remain without sources.--[[User:AYArktos|A Y Arktos]] 07:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:22, 7 July 2006

Railway

Railway opened to Goulburn before 1886! the preceding unsigned comment is by Syd1435 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 24 November 2004 (UTC+11 hours )

Citing of sources required

There is no mention that Goulburn is part of the the traditional land of the Gundungara people. It SHOULD say that.

The original version of this article included the text: There is little information available on the local Aborigines. However it is clear that there was, in general, intense and violent conflict over European settlement of the south of NSW until the 1840s and 1850s. On the shore of Lake George, to the south, a group of whites shot a entire tribe and left the skeletons to bleach in the sun. Since that edit the paragraph has been wikified but otherwise unchallenged. I do not think it should remain without sources.--A Y Arktos 07:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add some balance to this section. Grahamec 03:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 2nd para of the history section includes the assertion "European settlers, with the assistance of the police, prevented Aboriginals, sometimes violently, from hunting their livestock, in accordance with British law, although there is little evidence of deliberate killings of the indigenous population." Can we please have a source for this assertion - it is not a matter of white armband or black armband points of view or history theories, it is a matter of Wikipedia:verifiability. For guidance, see for example, the section Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles#Attribute facts. My concern is not to deny any events but to get them right, and if we can't get them right we must not make them up. The way to assure ourselves that we have got it right is to follow the various content policies including Wikipedia:No original research:

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Wikipedia:No original research is one of three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The policies are complementary, jointly determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from each other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

I have commented out the assertion until the source is cited. I aplogise for picking on this particular fact, I was well aware that the naming section had been wrong too and had failed to either rectify it or pick up on it. However, since settlement and indigenous conflict is such a controversial topic it needs special care.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't 'not accept' the assertion (or otherwise), I am seeking a reliable source that in the southern tablelands "European settlers, with the assistance of the police, prevented Aboriginals, sometimes violently, from hunting their livestock, in accordance with British law, although there is little evidence of deliberate killings of the indigenous population." It is not appropriate to apply researched history from other areas of Australia to this area, or to any other specific area without references that substantiate that the experience was local. As per above quote from the policy, we need to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. Key words here include directly related. The general article on Indigenous Australians can deal with the more general issues of settlement and displacement, this article needs to deal witht he specific Goulburn experience. If necessary, rather than delete and leave blank, you can say something like, elsewhere in New South Wales or whatever, xyz was the experience, (cite source) however, there are no references discussing the experience in the southern tablelands and Goulburn.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if anyone posts a citation here for the sort of information that Arktos is wanting, then I bet you 10 bob that that document will suddenly disappear from public access. This is how its done. That is why there is next to nil publically available that records this stuff, and why researchers such as Windshuttle can then claim the massacres never happened. Best to not put such stuff here but if you know any such sources that document Aboriginal killings, give it to an Aboriginal Elder. This is Australia's history. The Elders will obtain a copy of the information before it suddenly disappears. I am not Indigneous but have a great respect for Australia. I'd like all this nation's history recorded, not just the admirable content. I believe also that though we still live in 'contact' times in 2006 so some anti Indigneous stuff is still happening, maybe in 100 years that shame from those of European origin re what was done to the Indigneous people, will have lessened and all can be known without a need to remove content from the record. That said, the old newspapers wont be removed much more than they already have been and though they take some traweling through, there are still bits and pieces in them. There are also huge gaps in those papers though too that suggest something major happened, it was reported, and those reports went missing. Some newspapers went out of business pretty quick also so that may indicate that those papers did something that may have sent them to the wall.

That a 'Protector of Aboriginals' (George Augustus Robinson) was appointed for an area that included the Monaro and Southern Tablelands and the Canberra and Yass regions, as well as other areas to the south indicates there was some need that existed that his appointment was addressing.

Robinson's papers are found at 'George Augustus Robinson Papers', re his journey through these areas on appointment in 1844, CY Reel 442, A 7040 part 2 (Database no.38) State Library of NSW.

It would be handy to attach here a brief outline of Robinson's success at saving the Tasmanian Indigneous people prior to him taking on his next appointment in the area noted above. People get another appointment when their previous one has been successful - dont they. There are different ways of going about things. Once people on the dole were listed as unemployed if they worked less than 16 hrs week. Now only those who work less than an hour week are unemployed but if you do an approved activity (go for a Job Network interview that atkes an hour) you are working. Little wonder the jobless rate has fallen. Giving out blankets is helping the Aboriginal people - isnt it?

I was just reading the returns by the various Protectors of Aboriginals for the districts. The Aboriginal people would be encouraged to come in to a central point, their numbers tallied then they would be given a blanket each. Each year their numbers lessened through diseases such as smallpox.

In 'The Atlas' newspaper online at 'Australian Newspapers NSW' in whatever era required, there will be references to killings (but not having happened for at least 10 years or in the never never), for this area. Also in other early Australian newspapers that can be accessed from The Atlas site, or via the Ferguson Collection online. The Ferguson Collection can be found under 'The Australian Cooperative Digitization Project' on google. Goulburn is where my dad was born in 1800s. Another source perhaps are the NSW Supreme Court Historical Records that are online for the 1830 era. There is a specific Aboriginal section in those records. The court transcrips can be read.

I've deleted some unbalanced comments Grahamec 05:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Particularly long main street"

What is its length? Nurg 09:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of name

I have removed the reference to Sir Walter Stevenson and substituted the GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES REGISTER EXTRACT Grahamec 07:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSW cities

The New South Wales cities template is on both the shire and the town site. Is this a problem? Grahamec 00:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]