Talk:Yagan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statue location

  • Does anyone know the whereabouts of the statue now? I read somewhere it's in storage. - Moondyne 01:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, does anyone know the location of Yagan's murder. I had understood it to be in the Bullcreek area. - Moondyne 01:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was in the Bullcreek area. If I remember correctly it was on the road from Fremantle to Armadale. I'll consult Westralian Portraits tonight and let you know. Hesperian 02:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, no. What I've written above refers to the location of Yagan's ambush of the Velvicks. There is a "Yagan Park" in Bullcreek; possibly this marks the precise spot. I believe that Yagan was murdered somewhere near Bassendean. As I said above, I'll consult Westralian Portraits tonight and let you know. Hesperian 02:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd be good to include this in the article. Moondyne 03:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Burial location

Regarding the burial location, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Dept. of Aboriginal Affairs jointly published a document entitled "Yagan's gravesite master plan" in 1998. From the introduction:

The Western Australian Planning Commission and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have commissioned this Master Plan in order to guide matters of ownership, management, development and future use of Lot 39, West Swan Road, Upper Swan.

I haven't actually seen the document; this quote is from the document's entry in the State Library database. But given that this document exists, I find it a little strange that there is so much uncertainty about the burial location. Hesperian 02:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • You would assume that given the head was removed for the express purpose of keeping it, that the body would have been buried at the murder site. It's hard to imagine a grizzly affair like a beheaded body being carted very far in those days, given difficulties of transport and that by 1833 there would have been no more than maybe a thousand settlers in the Perth region. - Moondyne 03:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Murder site

Westralian Portraits refers to the murder site as

... in a small clearing in the hills behind Guildford...

and

... along the banks of the Swan River near Guildford....

I had a look in the street directory, and it seems the location may have been near Lilac Hill. West Swan Road is right there, so probably Lot 39 marks the spot exactly.

The description of the location of the murder of the Velvicks is

near the Canning River beside the road from Kelmscott to Fremantle.

The location of Yagan Park (off Leach Highway, on the boundary of Bull Creek and Rossmoyne) is about the only place that fits that description.

I will try to work this information into the acticle. Hesperian 01:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Featured article?

Ian has suggested that this article is just about ready to be a featured article status, and I most enthusiastically agree. Is there anyone out there other than us two who would be willing to get involved?

I think there are a few things that need to be done before we even think about peer review. I've started a to-do list at Talk:Yagan/to do (transcluded below).

  • Are the sections okay? I like it the way it is, but one could argue for breaking up parts of the Yagan's life section, or for collapsing the status and cartoon bits into cultural references.

Hesperian 02:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

{{todo}}

    • I would personally prefer the "Relations with settlers" be split up into sub-sections just to break up the text. The subsection that I can see are as follows:
      • First Aboriginal Resistance
      • Outlaw and Capture
      • Yagan and Lyon
      • Dead or Alive (for Lieutenant-Governor Frederick Irwin declaration as outlaws)
- Matthew kokai 09:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Another reference

I've just found another reference:

  • Fforde, Cressida (2002). "Chapter 18: Yagan". In Fforde, Cressida, Hubert, Jane and Turnbull, Paul (eds) (ed.). The Dead and Their Possessions: Repatriation in Principle, Policy, and Practice. London:Routledge. pp. 229–241. ISBN 0415233852. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

This chapter focusses on the process by which Yagan's head was located and repatriated, which is an area of the article that is a bit weak. There is a copy in the Alexander library. I'll get to it eventually if no-one beats me to it. Hesperian 05:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Bibbulmun

There seems to be a lot of contradictory information about the relationship between "Bibbulmun" and "Noongar". Some sources speak of the "Noongar people of the Bibbulmun nation", while others speak of the "Bibbulmun tribe of the Noongar nation". Green writes:

Early in the 20th century, Daisy Bates brought all the groups together under the popularised named of Bibbulmen [sic] which was never totally accepted by the south-west Aborigines. More recently the Aboriginal descendents of the south-west groups have accepted Nyungar as the generic term for themselves...

The situation is sufficiently confusing that I have decided to remove references to "bibbulmun" from the article altogether. If anyone has a clearer understanding of how Yagan, Noongar and Bibbulmun relate to each other, feel free to reinsert it. Hesperian 00:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Exhumation of Yagan's head

I've got the full story of the exhumation of Yagan's head, and a heap of good images; see Commons:Yagan. I intend to write it up, but probably at Exhumation of Yagan's head, rather than directly into Yagan. Hesperian 00:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Some peer review

Great work on the article. On Hesperians request I have a few suggestions

  1. Personally I don't like the use of Harvard style referencing in encyclopedia text- you might want to try the new system for numbering refs as described here m:Cite/Cite.php which is a numerical footnoting system, and use one of the other footnoting systems for the two explanatory notes you have - or work them into the text somehow. This is really a preference thing on my part- but most recent FAs do use a numbered note system.
  2. You might want to check the MoS for quote sytle - I'm pretty sure quotes aren't supposed to be italicised. Same does with caps in section headings, in all the heading with Head, have the word capitalised but it is not capitalised in the text- so choose one and stick with it.
  3. The sections Alas poor Yagan, Yagans statue and cultural referces are in a sense all discussions on the impacts of Yagan on contemporary Australian society and could be brought together under one H2, with H3's if required.
  4. Americans don't seem to understand that the european settlers of Australia had to do very little to take the land of the Aborigines (in most instances) - so anything that you could add to state that the settlers had no legal obligation to be nice to the Aborigines - would be useful for the non-Australian reader.
  5. The lead could have a bit more detail, the name of his tribe, how he died and specific mention of the exhumation wouldn't hurt, and in the interest of being a comprehensive summary it should also mention that his impact extends beyond folklore into aspects of popular culture.
  6. Merge sentence long and two sentence paragraphs into longer paragraphs where practical.
  7. Get someone else to copy edit it, Cyberjunkie, Wayward or Tony1 are usually willing to lend a hand - and a fresh pair of eyes is useful.
  8. Image:Alas Poor Yagan (2 panels).jpg needs a fair use rationale added for use in this article and should be tagged with {{Non-free fair use in}} for all the articles where it meets the fair use requirements.

These minor things shouldn't take long to address, and I think the article should have a smooth run through FAC.--nixie 16:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

LinkFix dump

For more background on this topic, see User:Ambush Commander/LinkFix dump.
================================================================================
LinkFix Dump
Yagan
2006-01-09.18-09-20
================================================================================
2   [[Indigenous Australian]] -> [[Indigenous Australians]]
12  [[Bush]] -> DISAMBIG
28  [[Execution (legal)]] -> [[Capital punishment]]
48  [[Egyptian]] -> DISAMBIG
57  [[London University]] -> [[University of London]]
57  [[Archaeologist]] -> [[Archaeology]]
66  [[Electromagnetic]] -> [[Electromagnetism]]
72  [[Palaeontologist]] -> [[Paleontology]]
72  [[Bradford University]] -> [[University of Bradford]]
74  [[Government of the United Kingdom]] -> [[Her Majesty's Government]]
76  [[Princess Diana]] -> [[Diana, Princess of Wales]]
84  [[Dreamtime]] -> DISAMBIG
90  [[Racial discrimination]] -> [[Racism]]
98  [[Intimate parts]] -> [[Intimate part]]
# DONE

Three links to disambiguation pages. Get to work! — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks again Edward. All fixed. Hesperian 02:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Image placement

Does anyone else find a picture of Yagan's disembodied head a little disturbing? A couple of other articles with unusual pictures (eg nudity) tend to have a "safe" image at the top, and the unusual pictures later on. Perhaps the first image should be swapped with one of the staue images? Andjam 09:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not censor offensive content.--cj | talk 10:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for censorship! Andjam 10:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
As the article describes, the statues nudity caused some controversy of its own! It is a bit macabre, but I'd prefer to keep the head at the top of the article. -- Ian ≡ talk 10:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Although the photographer of the statue has released the photo under the GFDL, there is also copyright in the statue itself. Using the photo of the statue to illustrate the statue is fair use, but using the photo of the statue to illustrate Yagan himself would not be fair use and would infringement the copyright of the sculptor. I appreciate what you're saying but given the paucity of extant images of Yagan I don't think we have the luxury of rejecting the best image on those grounds. Hesperian 11:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
This whole discussion above seems to ignore what anybody trained in anthropoplogy would find quite problematic - for significant sections of the australian aboriginal community, any image of a deceased person is simply not on.

It's intriguing to think that a non aboriginal might find a head a problem, when in fact the images verge on being offensive to the people who have the greatest interest in the story, but who are denied a voice in the issue - the question has to be asked - if a nungar finds the image offensive, but you have an international encyclopedia that is values free (which is problematic in probably most countries in the world), does the encylopedia tower above local sensitivities and ignore them? I would strongly suggest that an editor with this article should in actual fact contact either a member of anthrop staff at Curtin, Edith Cowan or UWA who has dealings with nungar's and actually ask them to review the article, simply to ascertain what I have just written - at least out of respect for the nungars who potentially might end up reading the article at some point. To not do so would smell of arrogance. Good article guys, just do some checking! SatuSuro 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

SatuSuro, I realise that some indigenous Australians object strongly to images of people who are dead; indeed some will not even speak the names of the dead. However, Wikipedia's content disclaimer clearly states that Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors is a core plank in Wikipedia's What Wikipedia is not official policy. The issue you are raising is not related to the protection of minors, but the principle is the same: we don't censor factual information to avoid offense. If vagina can contain photographs in blatant contravention of social norms, then certainly Yagan can contain a painting of a Noongar head. Official policy aside, my personal view is that Wikipedia content should be judged on the extent to which it is factual and verifiable, not on the extent to which it is unoffensive. I would oppose any alteration of the article for the purposes of making it inoffensive to Noongars or any other person or cultural group. Hesperian 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The censorship protection is of course vital to Wikipedia. But with that said, simply because articles may contain content offensive to indigenous groups doesn't oblige you to keep a picture of human remains as if any removal would be a censorship. It would be a much easier argument for you to make if this were an article on the practice of "anthropological curiosity". However, this is about Yagan, and I personally fail to see how the current image represents the topic better than the statue used later or any other number of images that could be used. The preserved head makes no unique factual contribution here. I feel like where other images are just as suited to represent the topic as much effort as possible should be made not to unnecessarily offend indiginous groups to whom this topic has the most relevance to in many ways. With that said I appreciate the excellent work you guys have done here! WellesShapiro 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said above:
Although the photographer of the statue has released the photo under the GFDL, there is also copyright in the statue itself. Using the photo of the statue to illustrate the statue is fair use, but using the photo of the statue to illustrate Yagan himself would not be fair use and would infringement the copyright of the sculptor.
This situation applies also to the cartoon and Durack's book cover. The only images of Yagan in existence are Cruikshank's painting and Moore's pencil sketch. The latter looks absolutely awful. We simply don't have enough images to be able to pick and choose. And I feel strongly that the should be an image in the article. Hesperian 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I also feel that useing a image of his Yagan's as the top image and as the image on the fount page is disresectful and not in keeping with the fact that generally we do not use unflatering images of people for the lead picture in bi-og's. However, I appreciate what you are saying about the copyright stuff. I am probally wroung but dosen't the fact that the statue is publically displayed mean that people have the right to create their own images (in this case photo) of it under their own copy right? --JK the unwise 09:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong word?

"the exhumation would be of great personal significance to Yagan's ancestors, and great national importance to Australia." Should this read as descendents not ancestors - I don't see how anything can be of significance to a dead persons dead ancestors. Giano | talk 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Right you are. Thanks. Hesperian 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone add the pronunciation of the name Yagan? Both the usual anglicized pronunciation and the original Noongar, if possible. Thanks. --Ptcamn 19:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're asking because you want to make a spoken word version of the article ;) . I don't have time right now to look into Wikipedia's method of specifying pronunciation, but I'll get to it on Monday if no-one beats me to it. For now, I can tell you this:
  • The current anglicized pronunciation is Ya-gan with enphasis on the first syllable, "Ya" rhyming with "day", and the 'a' in "gan" barely pronounced, like the "gain" in "bargain".
  • There is no certain knowledge of the original pronunciation, but contemporary documents sometimes spelled the name "Eagan" or "Egan", from which it is now thought that the first syllable was probably pronounced "Ea" to rhyme with "bee".
Hesperian 01:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've done the best I can, but I don't have a reference on the correct pronuncation. I have request a review from User:Dougg, a linguist with an interest in Indigenous Australian languages. Hesperian 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I changed two things: the stress marker from an apostrophe (') to a vertical line (ˈ), and I added a schwa before the /n/ (the /n/ is not syllabic for all speakers, and that's a phonetic, not phonemic, detail anyway). Plus I added the note that it rhymes with pagan for the non-IPA knowers. --Ptcamn 08:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Contemporary documents sometimes spelled Yagan's name Egan or Eagan, which suggests that the correct pronunciation may have been closer to /'iː gən/ than the now widely accepted /'jæɪ gən/.

Most Australian languages don't allow words to begin with phonemic vowels, although the sequences /ji/ and /wu/ may sometimes be reduced to [i] and [u]. And since most Australian languages also don't distinguish between [i] and [e], or [o] and [u], it's quite possible that both [iːgən] and [jeːgən] (≈[jæɪgən]) were within the valid range of variation for an underlying /jiːgan/, which would be spelt Yiigan by a linguist today.

But this is original research. --Ptcamn 00:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Word of appreciation

Great featured article, never heard of the guy before personally, but learned a lot reading a smooth-flowing article that touched all the bases and all. Great work to the contributors who helped! Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 02:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sherurcij. Greatly appreciated. Hesperian 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation and query

I'd never heard of him before either (never having been to Australia), and wouldn't dream of altering a featured article on its day in the limelight, but the word "murdered" in the second sentence jarred. I read the rest of the article (off the main page) and it seems that although white settlers were killed, it is doubtful if all these cases were murder, at least from Yagan's point of view. "Murdered" is a strong and specific word, and casts a bad light on someone who could also be seen as a resistance fighter; I think "killed" would be more in keeping with NPOV. But I am prepared to be told I am wrong. BrainyBabe 16:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • No, the white settlers that were trying to bring civilization to Australia were murdered by the savage Yagan. Silly comment, typical chick comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.104.94 (talk • contribs)
  • The change from "killed" in the article to "murdered" on the main page is definitely not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.143.116 (talk • contribs)
  • The word "killed" has been restored. - Gobeirne 19:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

'they?'

"... they suggested he remain with them to avoid arrest" -- Does this mean the Keats brothers? The sentence is ambiguous. Brainhell 18:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks, that's fixed now. Hesperian 22:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias

In the first paragraph there is a sentence that says "It should be noted that this group chose a brutal murderer as it's hero". This is a very biased, and possibly racist comment, not to mention innacurate, as anyone killed in this period should be considered a casaulty of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Importantthings911 (talk • contribs)

It's not racist, it's a realist comment. A racist comment would not be rooted in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.104.94 (talk • contribs)

I've never heard of Yagan before, so I don't really know the specifics of what happened, but it seems to me that if one person makes an edit that replaces killed with "savagely murdered" and "note that this group chose a murderer as a hero", that it is not NPOV, to say the least. Especially when the only person that defends it is the same one that switched it in the first place and in a discussion just above this one engaged in some racism and added some sexism too...Salur 22:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No one engaged in "racism", merely realism. Racism is not based on facts, therefore it is wrong. Realism is based on facts, so it is fine, unless you consider truth to be evil? I didn't "defend" anything, as rigtheous statements don't need defending. As for the "Sexist" charge, it would be "sexist" if I wrote that it was typical of ALL chicks, but I did not write that. I left that one open to interpretation. Thanks for the PC comments though, have fun listening to emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.104.94 (talk • contribs)

I also feel that the comments were racist. What is more clear is they were editorialising. They have been removed. Hesperian 22:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what you feel? You are wrong. They were realist comments and not racist comments. If they are based in fact they are realist and not "racist." Please learn the distinctions before posting how you "feel."

A group that extolls the virtues of someone that murders innocents should be noted as such. That is not racist, it is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.104.94 (talk • contribs)

It's only murder if it's proven to be murder (as opposed to, for example, manslaughter), and no court of competence has adjudicated the issue. Calling it "murder" is therefore POV. --Nlu (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"Murder" is a culturally defined term. Some cultures think state-sponsored executions are murder; some cultures don't. Some cultures think abortion is murder; some don't. Some cultures think euthanasia is murder; some don't. In this case, the Noongar culture did not consider retribution under tribal law to be murder, whereas the white settlers did. Therefore to define Yagan's actions as murder is to impose a single cultural viewpoint upon the article.
Having said that, you have made me recognise a slight POV with respect to this issue. The fact that the Noongars would have considered the killing of Entwhistle to be retribution under tribal law is explicitly stated, whereas the fact that the white settlers considered it the unjustifiable murder of an innocent man is left unstated. I left it unstated because I assumed that this would be understood by readers of the article but this is making an unacceptable assumption about cultural assumptions of readers. I will now insert an explicit statement that the killing of Entwhistle was considered murder by the settlers. Hesperian 02:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a featured article?

This article is a stain on the face of wikipedia. It was laoded with imperialist slanted bias when it was featured.

Murder is a LEGALLY defined term. Not a culturally defined term. It's a term that is often mis-used in propaganda and rhetoric though as has been pointed out with examples such as abortion. If ship loads of aboriginies landed on the shores of england with superior weapons, killed a bunch of innocent civilian residents and proceded to occupy the land, would you consider attempts made by the british armed forces to stop them to be murder? Factoid Killer 13:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Then by your logic a citizen of the United States has the right to kill any illegal immigrant in the country, as they are not permitted to be there legally. That same applies for illegals anywhere. Also, beheading an innocent civilian in Iraq might not be considered murder then, as under your moral relativism this might not be considered such.

Nice thinking! The joys of moral relativism. Sandra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.104.94 (talk • contribs)

This is just about the worst attempted use of the straw man fallacy i've ever seen. Should I now suggest you are wrong because most grass is not blue???

On my logic the US millitary has a right to protect its borders by killing an insurgence of foreigners who are shooting at them as they attempt to occupy the country. Yagan was a warior trying to protect his land and freedom from an invading foreign force. Factoid Killer 18:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

How is that the "worst attempted use of the straw man fallacy?" Might help if you backed up your hyperbole. This is definitely my favorite wikipedian tactic, to debase someone's argument by linking their own tactic to a pre-established one.

In reality, you didn't disprove the logic that was presented in my last post.

Yagan was not protecting his land and freedom from an invading foreign force as he killed innocents and not combatants. Many US citizens feel their land and freedom being impinged upon in the Southwestern United States by an illegal foreign force. Under your logic they would be allowed to kill the invading force. A lone bandit calling himself a warrior can go on a spree similiar to Yagans, and be hailed as a hero by a group for killing this invading foreign force. Your logic is faulty, and is one of the worst attempts at moral relativism I've ever seen. Sandra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.104.94 (talk • contribs)

Sorry dude but your analogy is comparing apples with oranges. Your analogy is in no way compatible with my suggestion in a number of ways. First and foremost, I didn't in any way suggest or imply it was 'OK to kill people'. What I said is that killing doesn't always amount to 'Murder' which is a 'Legal' term. What you have done is refute a weaker argument than the one I put forth. I put forth an argument suggesting that the word murder is being used innapropriately and you argued against a claim that it's ok to kill illegal immigrants. This method of arguing is called the Straw Man Fallacy which is a Logical fallacy. And secondly i'd like to say that your suggestion that blue giraffs eat pink bunnies is completely and utterly ridiculous. Factoid Killer 09:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I have reviewed the article and found three misuses of the word "murder", two referring to killings of a settler by Aborigines and one referring to the killing of an Aborigine by a settler. These misuses have now been corrected. These three minor issues hardly add up to "imperialist slanted bias". Factoid Killer, can you tell me exactly what parts of the article you feel are biased?
Having already been accused of "left wing bias" in favour of Aborigines, I find your accusation of "imperialist bias" quite encouraging. If the article is being attacked from both sides it must be fairly close to neutral, right? Hesperian 22:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't incorrect use of the word murder enough to qualify my statement? As I said, the word 'murder' is used in propaganda and rhetoric frequenly because it represents huge bias. That word says a lot about the POINT OF VIEW of the author too. Factoid Killer 09:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok "dude", or I could use your Christian name, "Factoid Killer" -- quoting a debating tactic you learned from wikipedia, the "strawman" fallacy, then linking to it and quoting parts of it verbatim does not in any way refute my point. It is interestign how you lazily chose use a link, and then cut and paste the definition of this tactic as a "logical fallacy," when in fact it is your logic that is faulty. Perhaps a re-read of your thesis and then mine would help. Sandra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.104.94 (talk • contribs)

Well i'd refer to your handle if you used one. Quoting what verbatum? If the straw man article is worded in a similar fashion to the way I write, perhaps that's because I wrote it. Perhaps you should check the history of that article. Not sure what that does for your theory that I learned about logical fallacies from wikipedia. However, I see that you didn't refrain from using the same tactic again. This is the summary so far... 1) I made a statement 2)you refuted something I didn't write in an attempt to make it look like a credible argument 3) I caught you out and explained why your fallacious argument was irrelevant 4) with a lack of a better argument you mocked me and accused me of copying and pasting... Is that the best you can do? Factoid Killer 21:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW, noticed how I refrained from using the ad-hominem fallacy in my arguments? Would have been very easy to carry out on someone who has been blocked as many times as you have for racist behaviour Factoid Killer 21:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You needed two laughable posts in a misguided attempt to discredit my perfectly logical arguments. All you did in the first post was claim that you wrote that strawman fallacy entry, and then list a bizarre group of fantastic statements and claims that do not hold up to scrutiny. Please explain how my refutation was not following the same line of logic as yours? You haven't done that, all you've done is write some odd rants that I somehow misunderstood your delicate genius.

The second is even worse, since you appear a fool calling my statements "Racist" when in reality they were realist statements. If someone is shot by Stalin does that make them evil? Of course not, therefore the power mad dictator that blocked me is not exactly someone you should look up to, nor point to as some sort of evidence that you are morally superior. Weird choice of tactcics "Factoid Killer." I also find it entertaining that someone is supposedly taken more seriously here when they have names like "Factoid Killer" instead of "unsigned comments." -- Sandra

And when you referred to Indigenous Australians as "ABos" on the talk page (now reverted) here? Are you unaware that that is an offensive term? Personally I find it virtually impossible to accept that a person who would make such a comment is not racist. Hesperian 07:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


OK lest analyse this. I know ppl like you don't like this sort of thing because it makes it difficult to confuse the issue through logical fallacy but tough bikkies I don't care...

You said 'Please explain how my refutation was not following the same line of logic as yours?'

In my original statement I equated the settlers as an armed invading force and stated that killing people whilst at war does not equate to murder. You might have been able to suggest they were not an armed invading force and that would have been a valid argument for me to refute. What you instead said is that you can apply the same logic to conclude that it is ok to kill illegal immigrants.

There are two very major things wrong with this statement.

  1. As soon as you remove the armed invading force and replace it with illegal immigrants you are NOT following the same line of logic.
  2. Suggesting that the word 'murder' is the incorrect word to use does NOT equte to saying 'killing people is ok'.
  • I put forth an argument suggesting that murder isn't the correct term to use
  • Instead of refuting my suggestion you refuted the weaker argument that 'it is ok to kill illegal immigrants'

Your reasoning was fallacious. You used the straw man fallacy.

This clearly refutes your original argument making it irrelevant. I provided the same reasoning in my original refuation to your reply.


YOu Said 'The second is even worse, since you appear a fool calling my statements "Racist" when in reality they were realist statements.'

OK now you've just resorted to out right lying. I didn't at any point suggest your arguments were racist. I merely pointed out my good faith by suggesting that if I wanted to I could resort to your dirty tactics (using logical fallacies). All I did is state the fact that you ahve been blocked on a number of occasions for racism. It is a LIE to suggest that I said your comments here were racist. Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy and as such it has no place in any debate.

You said 'I also find it entertaining that someone is supposedly taken more seriously here when they have names like "Factoid Killer" instead of "unsigned comments."'

I have nothing to say to this since the sentence is incoherent and I have no idea what you are implying.

Factoid Killer 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Oh, and you said 'quoting a debating tactic you learned from wikipedia, the "strawman" fallacy, then linking to it and quoting parts of it verbatim does not in any way refute my point.'

Now I'm saying go to the Straw man article, view the history at 11/11/2005 17:01 where I wasn't logged in but used this ip address. Furthermore, if you consider logical fallacies to be 'debating tactics' then you have some serious reading to do. 62.254.168.102 14:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems with article

Factoid Killer, what objections do you have to the article content as it stands now? Hesperian 22:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

None what so ever. I'm happy with the current state of the article. Factoid Killer 13:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hesperian 22:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yagan's gravesite location

Hello all,

I experimented with overlaying this image on the corresponding geographical features on Google Earth. For a pretty close match, the co-ordinates for the overlay were as follows:
North: 31°46'8.97"S
East: 116° 1'25.72"E
South: 31°47'21.42"S
West: 115°59'25.40"E
These co-ordinates give the approximate location of Yagan's burial as 31°46'49.38"S 116°0'56.89"E. Sound about right? - Gobeirne 06:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. You might like to try this using the original maps provide by the [www.dia.wa.gov.au Department of Indigenous Affairs] Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System. Just do a search for "Yagan". Hesperian 07:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Entwhistle

In Westralian Portraits ISBN 0855641576, Enion Entwhistle is referred to as the spearing victim and the father of the two boys which were hidden under a bed. The boys are unnamed. The citation is Perth Gazette 25 May 1833. -- Moondyne 03:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I had another look over the literature. Both of the Neville Green references refer to the speared person as Enion Entwhistle. Hallam refers to him as Erin. Other references don't give a name. I'll look into it properly when I have time. Meanwhile, my gut feeling is I trust Hallam slightly more than Green, so I'll leave it as is unless you want to change the article to flag the uncertainty on that point. Hesperian 05:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, I won't change the article. I just thought it better to flag it as a possible typo here. -- Moondyne 05:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

`

Dixon

It has just come to my notice that there is a young indigenous AFL footballer on Swan Districts' list named Yagan Dixon. He's obviously named after Yagan, but to say so without a source would be original research. Plus he's not notable yet, as he hasn't even debuted yet. Something to keep an eye on. Hesperian 03:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I belive that he has debuted [1]. —Moondyne 04:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Template

Upon looking at Mabo, I thought that this might be of use for this article:

Non-talk info
Indigenous Australians should be aware that this article may contain pictures and names of deceased Aboriginal people and or images of their art work. In many Aboriginal communities restrictions apply on viewing images of people who have passed away. If appropriate, the approval of the relevant local community leaders should be sought before this page is viewed.

Thoughts? Twenty Years 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, for several reasons
  1. Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles
  2. WP:NOTCENSORED
  3. By the way web pages work, a reader will see the name and (in this case) the image at the same time as he sees the notice which means that the intent if the notice is ineffective anyway
A template with similar identical content was discussed here and here in August and consensus was to delete. Note also that there is a general disclaimer at Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. —Moondyne 05:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair call. Twenty Years 06:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was just looking at this page and I thought that adding that template might be a little PC, not to mention against WP:NDA, specifically Wikipedia:Content disclaimer (Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to.). Littleteddy (roar!) 10:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Naral/Narral

Hi. The Perth Gazette from June 1st 1833 gives the name of one of Yagan's children as "Naral", age 9, while the article on Midgegooroo gives the name of Yagan's brother as "Narral". Does anyone know if it's common to re-use names in Noongar culture, and if not, is it likely that the source in the Gazette has confused Yagan's brother for his son? (i.e. are they the same person?) - Cheers, Gobeirne (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Silvia Hallam reckons the article that said Yagan had children is mistaken. Hesperian 04:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kinsella quote

Just dumping a quote here that might be worth working in at some point. In "Road to hell runs through us", Australian Literary Review, 6 August 2008, John Kinsella called the taking of Yagan's head back to London the horrific disrespect and degradation of society rounds of "show and tell". Hesperian 04:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Some more references

Found some more references that need to be checked out:

  • McGlade, Hannah (1998) "The repatriation of Yagan: a story of manufacturing dissent" Law/Text/Culture 4(1):245-255.
  • Wanjurri-Nungala, Mingli (2000) "Yagan and the London-Liverpool connection" in The Oxford companion to Aboriginal art and culture

Hesperian 12:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


Yagan Memorial Park

The recent press releases refer to the DIA granting $500,000 to the City of Swan to develop the park. This [2] Swan River Trust approval dated 9/2/09 refers to it costing $1964800. I wonder who's coughing up the rest? That's a shitload of money. Djanga 02:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it has been the DIA's baby all along; maybe they are paying the City of Swan in installments, or maybe they are paying the City of Swan to do the landscaping, fencing, etc, and they'll come in and do the rest later. Hesperian 03:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

POV

[thread moved to the bottom where it is easy to find. Hesperian 14:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)]

there is clearly still a major POV problem with this article -- especially the opening paragraph!

J. Crocker 20:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree; seems to be mostly the result of one over-zealous editor (who appears bent on undoing anyone's attempts to correct the obvious bias of the article.) -L —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.117.117 (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The sentence fragment that you removed, itself pertinent to discussion of bias, was attributed to a source. cygnis insignis 09:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see your point. To reiterate the reason for my change, I removed the bolded section from this paragraph:
Throughout the repatriation process, many sections of the international media treated the story as a joke. One example given by Adam Shoemaker is a US News & World Report story headlined Raiders of the Lost Conk, in which Yagan's head is referred to as a "pickled curio", and Colbung's actions are treated as a publicity stunt; this treatment stands in stark contrast to the respectful tone in which the same newspaper covered the work of International War Crimes inspectors uncovering mass grave sites in former Yugoslavia.[20]
My reason for the edit was that the removed fragment only serves to advance the author's opinions, not to enhance anyone's knowledge of Yagan. While it contains a "cited fact", that fact is inappropriate to the current context. The description of the 'pickled curio' article makes a clear enough case that the story was treated as a joke by the media. The fact that the discovery of mass graves in Yugoslavia were not treated as a joke by US News & World Report is both obvious and irrelevant; the only purpose such a statement serves in this context is to equate the Yagan situation with the latter war crimes, which is a subjective judgment.
67.188.117.117 (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You may think that fact is irrelevant in the current context, but clearly Shoemaker thinks otherwise, since he explicitly drew a contrast between the two.
Shoemaker's context (his essay) and ours (a section regarding repatriation of Yagan's remains) are two entirely different things. In his context, Shoemaker's comparison has two effects: to underline his argument about media bias, and to implicitly equate two atrocities. Fine. But in the context in which you cite him - a description of media reactions to repatriation - the first the effect is redundant and the second irrelevant, and the decision to include them gives the impression of editorial bias.
67.188.117.117 (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I will need to re-read Shoemaker before I can comment on this. Hesperian 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes of course the fragment serves to advance Shoemaker's opinion. The entire essay does that.
Yes it is a subjective judgment. But it's Shoemaker's subjective judgment, not ours. What we're doing here is reporting objectively on the subjective opinion of a suitably qualified scholar—a subjective opinion, mind you, which has been adjudged worthy of publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
Does the sentence give you the impression that we are endorsing Shoemaker's opinion? If so, then that is a problem.
Hesperian 14:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
That's precisely the impression I get; it's not a blatant slant, but one of a series of subtle (undoubtedly unintentional) suggestions of bias scattered throughout the page which are troubling because they reduce the reader's faith in the accuracy of what otherwise seems to be a very well-researched article.
In this particular case, there's a bigger problem. Though I understand the Yugoslavia bit comes from Shoemaker, that's not at all obvious. It reads as if you are the one making a comparison to the mass graves. This is mostly due to the way in which Shoemaker is cited: the source introduction prepares us to receive an example of how poorly the media treated the incident ("Throughout the repatriation process, many sections of the international media treated the story as a joke. One example given by Adam Shoemaker is..."), we receive that example, complete with direct quotations, followed by a semicolon. Next comes "this treatment stands in sharp contrast to..."; in this context, the logical antecedent of "this" is the "One example given by Adam Shoemaker". The lack of direct quotations in the remainder of the sentence does nothing to contradict this impression, leading to the conclusion that wikipedia, not Shoemaker, is drawing the contrast (and making the implied judgment.) Even if the reader eventually figures out that you are paraphrasing Shoemaker's argument, the decidedly non-neutral word choice("sharp contrast", "respectful tone") imply you are endorsing his opinion.
Removing what follows the semicolon would avoid any of the above confusion, while doing nothing to detract from the article's coverage of Yagan. At the very least I trust you will rephrase your citation to make the attribution clear, though I'd maintain that the decision to include such a comment gives the impression of editorial bias without any informational gain.
67.188.117.117 (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I take issue with your "without any information gain" claim. What was the normal editorial tone of the US News & World Report during the 1990s? Was it usual for them to present a humorous or cynical angle? If so, then the fact that they did so with this story proves nothing. The contrast is what matters here.
Following your logic you take the fact that the mass graves story was not presented humorously "proves" something? I would consider it common knowledge that major media outlets do not regularly take a humorous angle towards the discovery of mass graves. Is this US-centric of me? Are there any mainstream media outlets which take a satirical view towards the discovery of mass graves? Or am I assuming too much in my knowledge that the publication, with the title US News & World Report is not a satirical rag or the local hate group's newsletter? Am I placing too much faith in Shoemaker and the Griffin Law Review (or in you in citing him) in presuming that he was providing a representative example of media treatment in citing the "Raiders of the Lost Conk" story rather than attacking a straw man?
If the answer to these questions is no, then the fragment is redundant at best, and should be excluded to avoid the impression of editorial bias. But even if you answer yes to all of them, how does including the fragment answer any of the questions you pose regarding "editorial tone"? The fact that a magazine treats different topics differently is not in the least illuminating; there is only a meaningful contrast if one assumes the topics themselves to be similar, which in this case requires placing the poor treatment of Yagan's remains next to a mass slaughter on the atrocity scale. Obviously this is Shoemaker's subjective judgment; I would have no problem with your reporting it as such in a separate section on scholars' views of where the treatment of Yagan's remains fits on the scale of Bad Things Done By Bad People Throughout History. But when you justify inclusion of this subjective judgment on one topic (relative badness) as providing "proof" of Shoemaker's objective, verifiable claims about a different topic (media treatment of the badness), you are endorsing the subjective judgment, not "reporting objectively" on it.
67.188.117.117 (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
As for the phrasing: point taken. Some time in the next 24 hours I will rephrase it so as to (try to) make it clear that the contrast is Shoemaker's, and we are merely reporting it.
Please tell me about the other "subtle suggestions of bias scattered throughout the page".
Hesperian 02:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right; a contrast is only useful if the things being contrasted are otherwise equivalent. In explicitly noting the contrast in the way the stories were treated, Shoemaker is implying that the two stories are equivalent and ought to have been given equivalent treatment. So now we're up to three problems with this sentence: 1. Uncritically accepting the validity of the comparison; 2. Appearing to endorse Shoemaker's condemnation of the contrast; and 3. Failing to make it clear that we are reporting Shoemaker's opinion, not our own. Clearly this is going to require a deft touch. And that requires access to both Shoemaker's article and the original Lost Conk on which he is commenting. I seem not to have kept a personal copy of the former, and have never had access to the latter. Therefore it seems to me that the best, perhaps only, way forward is for me to concede the point and remove the contested sentence.[3] Hesperian 12:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for working this through with me, and enumerating the issues so succinctly. I apologize for my initial "zealous" comment. When I noticed the undo a few months after I made the change, I initially misread the mass graves comparison as yours, not Shoemaker's. Frustrated by what appeared to be such blatant unreasonableness, confirmed by an overly-hasty scan of the talk page, I made the poor choice to give up on reason and resort to incivility. I'm very sorry for that, particularly as a more careful reading of the talk archive showed that you have tried exceptionally hard to make the page as balanced as possible.
67.188.117.117 (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me about the other "subtle suggestions of bias scattered throughout the page".
Hesperian 02:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not up to the task of cataloging these for the article in full, much less arguing each with you. But in case it is useful in giving you some idea of what I'm talking about, here's a brief list from looking at the section on Yagan's life (1.2-1.3) beginning with the third paragraph of 1.2:
  • "possibly through infection of the spear wound"- implication is there's a good chance his death was coincidental to having been recently stabbed, and that the settlers thus got all upset without good reason. Is there reason to believe this is the case? If so, from what source?
  • the phrase "Yagan and his friends".
  • "Lyon was convinced that he could civilise Yagan and convert him to Christianity, and hoped to use his tribal standing to obtain the Noongars' acceptance of white authority."- seems biased from both sides, first for the implication that Yagan was not "civilised" because he didn't meet Lyon's definition of the term, and second for the unsourced attribution of Lyon's motives as obtaining "the Noongars' acceptance of white authority."
  • the characterization of Yagan's February and March actions as involvement in "minor conflicts": "minor" seems an odd choice given the threatening of Noorcott's life; "conflict" implies action taken by two sides, yet what you are describing is a series aggressive (either in fact or in the settlers perception) actions taken by Yagan without retaliation by the settlers. The exception is the "lecture" incident, but that's a whole nother can of worms. The result is the impression that you are trying to play down the threat perceived by the settlers.
  • the justification of the killing of the Velvicks. is killing people who have previously mistreated Aboriginal people required by tribal law? Not required but not outlawed? Who is "the native Munday" and why is his explanation relevant? (I know you expand later but as of this part there is no indication of his involvement. The way he is referenced confuses the issue of legality with that of motive.)
  • why are we to discard, as your phrasing suggests we should, Hasluck's argument as less credible than the unspecified counter-argument the other source puts forth?
67.188.117.117 (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It is still clearly POV in the opening of the article... How did this article get approved? Or has it been modified since its initial approval? Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My changes on the article's opening have largely been discarded by editors. I am not fluent on wiki article NPOV writing and policy so I will respect the editors deletions, but it just seems the opening paragraph leads the reader to a definite conclusion on his character and status, so far swinging between he was a crazed maniacal killer and he was a lauded champion of aboriginal rights who wouldnt hurt a fly, before they would even read the article. I just think the he's a hero and symbol of brutal unjust treatment talk need to be changed or removed to reflect a more neutral tone at the front of the article and let someone read on about his life and story, then judge. 173.18.177.11 (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment I think Shoemaker's comments are very POV. It is fair enough to not like the US News & World Report attitude towards the mission to recover the head, but to try to contrast it with something like war crimes in the Bosnian War is really comparing apples and oranges. Firstly, Yagan wasn't some bystander, he did spear some of the settlers, even if you think he was justified in doing so, and his party were armed, not totally defenceless even if he was tricked by the greedy Keates brothers. But the main point is that his fate is well known, as is the perpetrator, and all people involved are long dead. The Bosnian situation was very recent at the time, and the fate of the victims was mostly unknown, plus the perpetrators were mostly very much alive and could be brought to account for what they'd done. It is fair enough to complain about US News & World Report not taking aboriginal concerns, hurts and sensitivities seriously and trivialising them, but to compare and contrast a search for the head of a man killed 160 odd years earlier to the search for the fate of missing thousands of unarmed people is an exceptionally long bow to draw. Shoemaker seems to have a track record of this regarding his attempt to build up a single column in the West as "proof" that the WA media treated the vandalisation of Yagan's statue as a joke. Particularly when the column was Inside Cover. I have been kept away from Perth for quite a while, but when I get back, I should be able to supply the date of the article in question.

For later

Hesperian 03:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Childless

Moore also gives the names mentioned in the Gazette, another source that seems to contradict the claim he was childless; "... two sons of Ya-gan, Narah and Willim, the latter a young imp not more than ten or eleven years of age". Do other sources comment on this, or did they ask a reliable source? cygnis insignis 05:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hallam, Sylvia; Tilbrook, Lois (1990). Aborigines of the southwest region, 1829–1840 (The Bicentennial Dictionary of Western Australians VII. p. 333.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link):

Father MIDGEGOOROO; brothers NARRAL, a Tdondarup, BILLY and WILLIM (affiliation unknown); father's wives include an older woman and GANIUP, a Ballaroke, either of whom may be YAGAN's mother. The family initially frequented most an area south of the Swan and Canning estuaries but had access to a much wider area (see MIDGEGOOROO). Moore refers to "YAGAN's son" but there seems to be a confusion here. NARRAL, WILLIM and BILLY appear actually to be YAGAN's brothers, although WILLIM was eleven and BILLY six at the time of YAGAN's death, and they were thus possibly young enough to be his sons. However, YAGAN was more probably an unmarried young man, as no wife is ever mentioned. Grey lists JEGAN, who may be the same person, as a Ballaroke (Grey 1838). If so, YAGAN could be GANIUP's son.

Hesperian 11:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Misleading info on Statue Decapitation

I have to take issue with the way the statue decapitation has been portrayed in this article. As I remember it, the vandalism was not treated as "comic relief" by the media in general. I certainly did not get that impression from nightly news coverage. The article referred to was, from memory, Inside Cover, which is not an editorial, but is, in fact a "light, comic relief" section to the paper, and treats all its subjects in that matter, and is page 2 of the paper. They have previously run articles calling the Seven newsreader Rick Arden "Fred Arden", referred to the Queen as "Betty Windsor" and generally run a gossipy and "humorous" line on current affairs - a newspaper version of Clarke and Dawe. I'm sure many people have been highly offended by their various scribblings, and frankly I do not find most of their stuff funny, but it is clear that this is what they are trying to be. Given that, the Shoemaker article quoted is highly misleading. It implies that the major daily newspaper in WA published an editorial ridiculing Yagan, trivialising an act of vandalism and having a good laugh about the affair in general, ehnce the editor made a racist attack on Yagan and his supporters and was encouraging his journalists to do the same. Now I have little doubt that much of the general public may have felt like this, but the West did not publish serious articles in this vein, or publish an "editorial", merely the ravings of second rate comedians who think being offensive is a form of wit, and there are no shortage of them in Australia. I think it is an affront that the Griffith Law Review chose to publish such misleading information, particularly since as an eastern states institution, its readers are unlikely to have sufficient knowledge of the West to realise that the article was not an editorial and all that would be implied if it were. It is an attempt to generate outrage by selective, and indeed misleading quoting of facts, and should not be part of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.222.23 (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest? The critical rule here is that were only write what we have reliable sources for. We don't have sources that say the Shoemaker's article is misleading and Griffith Law Review should never have published it. But we have a little bit of wiggle-room when it comes to how we present Muecke's and Shoemaker's observations and opinions. For example, if you take exception to the terms "editorial" and "article", by all means suggest a more appropriate term. (But we can't assert that it was an Inside Cover piece unless you have a source for that assertion; and we can't say that Inside Cover exists to take the piss unless you have a source for that.)

Personally, I think it is not inaccurate to call this an editorial, and I agree with Shoemaker that it "has a definite authorising function"... and I agree with you that Inside Cover pokes fun at everything it touches... yet the fact remains that there are many topics Inside Cover will not touch, because it knows it would not get away with poking fun at them. Hence the "definite authorising function": by taking the beheading up as a topic suitable for poking fun at, it tells The West's readers that it is okay and safe to ridicule this topic. Hesperian 05:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're claiming that any column can rightly be called an "editorial"? Inside Cover is clearly NOT the West’s editorial, they have a separate and clearly marked one. You could argue that Paul Murray should not have allowed the publication of the piece, but by that logic you could classify all articles in the paper including the letters as “editorials”. No one got killed in the vandalism nor was anyone physically hurt. I think many people would think a lot of Inside Cover's obnoxious articles are on subjects which are not suitable for poking fun at. As it stands, someone from interstate or overseas, or not old enough at the time to have seen the original article, would imagine that the paper’s editorial which normally treats subjects seriously, decided to make fun of this particular act of vandalism. In truth it was a supposed comic relief column that did so, as it does with many other current affairs. I do not suggest that you claim that Shoemaker's article is misleading, but I do question whether quoting him is suitable given his misleading statements. It is also written to imply this was the general view of Perth’s media, which it was not. All TV news bulletins I can remember, and the actual article in the West took the issue seriously and did make plain that it was an act of vandalism, with supposed racist origins. If you must continue to run the Shoemaker quote, at least indicate that it appeared in Inside Cover, rather than in the actual editorial, and that Inside Cover is supposed to be a joke, and regularly runs such articles about current affairs. Surely to not do so is hardly NPOV. They did not, as I remember, run articles poking fun at Yagan's death or his actual decapitation. Comments, like Alston, were focused on the division amongst the aboriginal community caused by the return of the skull. This was a real feature, and not some outcome of racism. There were legal injunctions from groups attempting to stop Ken Colbung repatriating the head as is mentioned in the article. People are being a little too precious on this. Regarding the Alston cartoon, it is reasonable that aboriginals may object to having their identity challenged by reference to their non-aboriginal heritage, but to claim that having the skull say he'd prefer a "warm beer in a quiet pommy pub any day" is some racist attack to associate aboriginals with drinking is obtuse in the extreme, when it is clearly a comment about Yagan "turning in his grave" over the infighting in the community surrounding his repatriation, so much that it implies he would have preferred to stay in England. The Shoemaker article as presented is misleading, as any non-West Australian will assume that the paper in its editorial treated the vandalism as a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.12.67 (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought the court finding that the "warm beer" comment "reinforced a negative stereotype regarding alcohol and Indigenous Australians" was bloody ridiculous. It is worth noting that part of the reason Murray got off for that Alston cartoon was that the court found that the overall coverage of the issue was fair and balanced.

I'll concede that editorial is the wrong word. I agree that The West's overall coverage of the issue was balanced. I agree that Muecke and Shoemaker are making too much of this one jokey column. I agree that the language quoted would not appear anywhere in The West other than in Inside Cover.

But we still can't state that it was Inside Cover based on my logic and your memory. We need a source. And stating that it was Inside Cover won't mean anything to most readers of this article unless we also mention that Inside Cover treats every story this way. And we don't have a source for that either.

I've made a few changes to try to address your comments. "And, as an editorial" is excised from the quote. And I've tried to make it clear that the humour that Muecke and Shoemaker damn occurred only in a single column, not across the media coverage. I don't know what more I can do here without making assertions that are not supported by the sources. Please do let me know what you think. Hesperian 15:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long getting back. That section is much better. As it now stands it doesn't imply the Inside Cover piece was the general media attitude, which Muecke and in particular Shoemaker, seem to, but was a single column. Unfortunately work has kept me from checking back issues of The West for the original source, and they don't have it on their website. I could supply you with the date of the original article (I am ~90% sure it was Inside Cover as I vaguely remember it at the time, and it is their "style"). Would that be inadmissible as original research?

Note

template links

I moved {{respell}} ({{respell|YAY|gən}}) here, and think the use of {{pron-en}} is also questionable. Both link the Wikipedia:namespace, which contains only notes by the creators of that content; it should link to an article if anything, but I think it is beyond the scope of the site to create keys and fix a pronunciation to a name. It may be seem as a convenience thing, rather than properly sourced information, but that should see it demoted from the lead or moved to a sister who embraces this type of data. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What about all the other stuff you reverted with that edit? Kafziel Complaint Department 04:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently Cygnis was re-reverting material that I had already reverted once,[4] and which was restored without comment. I particularly take issue with the clumsy attempt to contrast the contemporary white view with the indigenous modern view. By all means contrast contemporary views with modern views; by all means contrast indigenous and non-indigenous perspectives; but it makes no sense to do both at the same time. Being neutral doesn't mean that every time we state one party's opinion we have to cast around desperately in search of some other opinion to contrast it with. Hesperian 05:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Importance in folklore - needs a reference

The lead contains the following unreferenced sentence: "Yagan's execution figured in Western Australian folklore as a symbol of the unjust and sometimes brutal treatment of the indigenous peoples of Australia by colonial settlers.". The body of the article does not mention the world folkore, as such this sentence fails WP:V and the lead policy that the lead should only summarize the main body, not contain any original claims. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not an original claim, contemporary sources describe him as a folk hero, a symbol, a leader, the "William Wallace" of the colony, whose death is described as a cataclysmic event for the traditional owners. Current sources on Western Australia, not 'the world', strongly reinforce this sentence; they are cited in the article. The assertion is uncontroversial, compare the constant historical revision of another iconic Australian who was knowingly flaunting the colonial law - Edward Kelly. Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Very well, then reference it and move it to the main body. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a very specific person who called Yagan "William Wallace", Robert Lyon. He clearly had sympathies with Yagan, although not enough to give up his attempts to settle the land, or turn Yagan into some sort of yeoman farmer! Attitudes about Ned Kelly are mixed, but it is his positive portrayal by various film and TV show makers which has had much to do with making him out as this "hero", and indeed as some kind of Victorian Robin Hood! However you can refer to the petition that the Catholic Church raised on his behalf in Melbourne for some level of contemporary support, even if it was specifically amongst Irish Catholics who felt marginalised by a government dominated by the wealthy squatters. I'm not so sure that contemporary sources make Yagan a "folk hero". He might be seen as such by Noongars, but I doubt many others in WA even knew about him prior to the great trek to repatriate the head. Perhaps "folk hero for Noongars" or "folk hero for WA Aboriginals" may be a more appropriate.

Photo Removal

I have removed the photo of Yagan because the photo description says that it bares little resemblance to Yagan himself, therefore it holds little to no encyclopedic value to this article about Yagan, especially not in such a dominant position in the article.Casey-uwanys (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Support the removal on the grounds it adds no encycolpedic value to article given it bares no resemblance to Yagan, if anything the image at best misrepresents Yagan and should not be included anywhere within this article. Gnangarra 09:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Is its resemblance so important? Its one of the very few contemporary pieces of media we have and the caption clearly explained the provenance and the painting is an important part of the story. Alas, the Federal Court found a cartoon concerning the repatriation of the head was acceptable to publish "because it was done reasonably and in good faith". That finding could equally apply. I do see a slight irony. Further, if this really is the "most complete resource on Yagan in existence", then this material should remain. Moondyne (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment - If we keep the image, it probably belongs in Yagan § Yagan's head (which mentions that portrait already) instead of the lead section.
Also, one paragraph in the "Head" section says "For effect, the head was adorned with a fresh corded headband and feathers ..." and then the next para mentions Cruikshank's portrait. (The summary at File:Yagan.jpg says it is that portrait.) It's probably worth stating explicitly in the figure caption that the headband/feathers were added for effect. Does any reference say whether Yagan did or did not normally wear such a headpiece? If he did not, failure to mention - in the image caption - their addition by Pettigrew purely for effect is somewhat misleading. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As the only contemporary image of Yagan, it holds immense encyclopaedic value. Casey-uwanys, you originally removed this image with edit summary "Image is a sensitive image to Noongar people."[5], but this no longer forms part of your stated rationale for removal. Has your position changed? Hesperian 01:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I've had a chat with someone and a reflect. It was pointed out to me that when you pull an article up on a mobile device, via for example the Wikipedia app, or view an article "snippet" via an aggregator, the lead image is extremely prominent and may well be the only image that a reader see at all. Given the acknowledged demerits of the Cruikshank image, I now agree that it should not be the article's lead image. However it remains the only contemporary image of Yagan and I remain strongly opposed to its removal from the article. I am going to reinstate it again, this time at the location of the relevant text. Hesperian 05:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
      • please undo your edit while this discussion is on going as its pointt and against all accepted standards to take such action. Gnangarra 03:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
        • The image has been part of this article for over a decade, and it is appropriate that it remain in place while we discuss the contentious proposition that it be removed. Per WP:BRD, a bold action was taken in removing the image, I have reverted, and now we discuss. I still remember how this place works, Gnangarra, and I know perfectly well that my actions are not "against all accepted standards". Also, please drop by my talk page some time and explain to me your WP:POINT accusation. Hesperian 05:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Memorial Author

I changed the text back to saying it was commisioned to Rammed Earth and the Author is Roman Babuniak. Here is a photo of it: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yagan_Memorial.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogrgwo (talk • contribs) 22:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The council minutes provided by the opening party in the article confirm that the City of Swan awarded the tender to build the earth ramparts to Rammed Earth (WA) Pty Ltd, but it says nothing about Antoniuk or a change of designer. The file provided in the link above indicates that Rammed Earth constructed the ramparts and that Roman Antoniuk is credited for the freeform monolithic walls, but it does not confirm that Dawson, Hill and the others were excluded from providing other artworks nor that they were replaced by Antoniuk. Furthermore, both sources are primary sources, whereas secondary sources are generally required to prove that material is sufficiently important for inclusion. In contrast, there are two clear and unambiguous sources stating that the artists are Dawson, Hill, Farmer and Ricks, and that ascribe specific artworks to them. Furthermore, the primary sources do not confirm, hint or state in any form whatever that the porcelain inset in the walls is not made by Dawson and Hills; nor does it confirm, hint or state in any form whatever that Farmer did not design the two tree-like sculptures at the entry to the park. There is therefore no reason to remove the material being removed, which is verifiable and noteworthy, and replace it with the opening party's original research. DrKay (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Yagan. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yagan/Archive_1&oldid=1137335861"