Talk:Yuin

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yuin. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Yuin. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better sources needed, systemic bias concerns[edit]

Per "Nothing About Us Without Us", what do these people(s) call themselves? Where are the sources from these people themselves? This article has what sound like colonialism and othering issues that are setting off some red flags in tone and accuracy. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CorbieV. I appreciate the sentiment, but I think it is misplaced in this case.
Donaldson's paper is mostly direct quotes from Yuin people describing their own culture and beliefs - it is about them, with them. While Donaldson does say that the Yuin rarely use the term "totem", she is talking about between themselves. In Donaldson's paper are numerous direct quotes from Yuin people using the term "totem" - and it's standard in other Yuin sources as well - when speaking to the rest of the world, it is their main term ("spiritual animal" also gets used, which I will add - but not as often as "totem").
As for what they call themselves, it is typically "Yuin". The fact that the term was coined by a non-Yuin does not mean it is not their term now. Sanglorian (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Work from how they describe themselves. I spent a lot of time to take the anthro language out. Add the tweaks in from there, don't just hit revert. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CorbieV .. from what I can see from the last edit/s .. you have done more than remove systematic bias .. you have actually edited out/ removed whole swarth of factual history around the native title determination applications etc made by Aboriginal families and applicants representing themselves as Yuin? ... Maybe instead of just editing this material out (and diminishing the amount of accurate, verifiable information contained within) the native title material might be restored to it's own section on self identifying Yuin families taking legal action and seeking legal recognition and native title rights? What do you reckon? I would be happy to make such edits?? Bruceanthro (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:RS material that is sourced to Yuin people themselves was accidentally dropped in the restructuring, yes, add it back in. My main issue was with the objectification and imposition of colonial terms and colonial viewpoints on the people, as these distort how they are perceived. Anything that has them speaking for themselves belongs here. But one instance of someone using an anthro term like "totem", for instance, to communicate with a non-Yuin, doesn't justify privileging that over their own terms. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CorbieV, I am worried we are at risk of an edit war. You mentioned that you wanted to privilege the Yuin's own terms. I would like to do that too. I think the root of our disagreement is that I believe the term the Yuin most often use in English is totem, and that is therefore their term (particularly preferable over generic terms that are not necessarily used by the Yuin). I have a number of sources to support this, from Yuin elders and institutions, land councils in the area, and so on. I'm wondering how we can resolve this disagreement. If I provide those sources, would you be happy with us returning to using "totem"? Sanglorian (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it's a direct quote by a Yuin person who says "totem", I think we should use Yuin terminology, because we can. We don't have to use vague generalizations from other cultures. Bringing in an Ojibwe term, that has already been so misrepresented, redefined, confused and reduced to near-meaninglessness by anthros and pop-culture writers does not add clarity, but risks less accurate representation of the people's beliefs. "Totem"in anthro and general use (and WP is general audience) has baggage. Better to start fresh, with accuracy, when possible. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CorbieV, sorry for the delay in getting back to you - I was busy over the Christmas break. Hope you had a good holiday too. Here are the sources that I promised to support Yuin people using totem:

  • Probably the most comprehensive is the Plan of Management Yuin Bangguri (Mountain) Parks. It is a work of the Boards of Management for Gulaga and Biamanga National Parks, which are majority Aboriginal owners. Pages 36 and 59-60 are the places of particular discussion of totems, but the term is used elsewhere, including in direct quotes of Yuin people.
  • The book Umbarra by Yuin authors Guboo Ted Thomas and Percy Mumbler prefers the term as well.
  • At least 10 Yuin people use the term in Donaldson's paper, including prominent Yuin leaders Parsons, Foster and Mumbler.

Thank you, --Sanglorian (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But these are government publications, or papers authored by non-Indigenous anthros, and the only named people are Thomas and Mumbler? We already know that "totem" is used to imprecisely translate their terminology, so it's going to appear in works written for cultural outsiders. But this still comes down to the Ojibwe term being applied imprecisely to a totally different culture, even if some of the authors were encouraged to use it in translation to get published or reach a broader audience (few people get control over their book blurbs - which is what it looks like you're citing with the Thomas and Mumbler book). This is also not just about being respectful to Indigenous Australians, but also about respecting the intellectual property rights of First Nations peoples (see UNDRIP), and how their terminology is applied and misapplied. I don't see why we have to do that here when the proper names are known, and when we have the option to be respectful. Why is it so important to you to homogenize them this way? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CorbieV.
Thomas and Mumbler are not the only named people. All the Yuin people directly quoted in Donaldson's paper are named - as are those directly quoted in the plan of management.
It's been a while since I've read Umbarra - I will check in what context "totem" appears there and get back to you.
What do you mean when you say the proper names are known? If they are, we should use them - but to my knowledge, that's not the case (except for moojingarl, which you were right to prefer over personal "totem"). There is also budjan, mura and jimbir for family "totem", but I am getting those from Howitt (1904) and I know that at least his translation for budjan is problematic.
I am reluctant to use ad hoc or generic terms, because these risk not capturing the nature of the relationship. For example, "ceremonial totem" was changed to "ceremonial connection", but does that capture it? Another example is the term "relative spirit" - which I haven't seen used by Yuin people.
I have looked for alternative terms, but none of them are used by Yuin as often as "totem" is - or in such a variety of places. For example, "spiritual connection" is used often by the Yuin that Donaldson quotes, but not as often as totem, and I haven't found it in the other sources. "Spiritual connection" is also used more generally by Yuin to describe non-"totem" relationships (e.g. with Gulaga). I am not cherry picking my sources - where I have found Yuin talking about spiritual connections to animals, they primarily use the term "totem". Of course, there may be other sources out there that I'm not familiar with.
Where we don't know the original term, I think we should prefer the term with the widest and most frequent use by the Yuin, "totem", over generic or ad hoc language. Otherwise we risk missing the nuance of or misrepresenting the nature of the relationship. Sanglorian (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sanglorian and CorbieV, I have been following your discussion and note there appears to be a history, within the State of New South Wales, about the records and history of the use of the concept and word 'totem' to capture and describe local Aboriginal kinship and kin relations beyond humans only to include kin relations to nature .. which was the subject of a whole investigative project here Kinship with the Natural World in NSW, also the subject of consultations with Aboriginal Peoples here Sharing Kinship with Nature ...noting one of the outcomes of which was some negative sensitivity to the use and allocation of 'totems' within National Parks, instead preferring a more general teaching/display of an effective ecological 'kinship' and focus on Aboriginal personal naming and place naming to reveal this kinship .. in preference to the then State National Parks apparent push for 'totems' and 'totemizing' peoples and langscapes .. at least that's the way I read the outcomes of the last report .. maybe reallocating the last and prior century writings about totems to a factual 'past ethnological writings' section or other?? Bruceanthro (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

see for instance, from first report, regarding the Yuin .."Totems: The word 'totemism' is not widely known or generally well regarded by contemporary Yuin people from Wallaga Lake. Howitt, who visited the area in the 1880s, lists 22 Yuin totems provided by the old men [1904] Bruceanthro (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bruceanthro and CorbieV -- I have updated the article to include some of the new language from Rose et al, and to prefer "spiritual connection" over "totem" (except for quotes, and in cases where a writer has specifically used it). As I say, Yuin authors and interviewees use "totem" much more often than any alternative term, and in a wide variety of contexts for a wide variety of audiences, but with your new source Bruce there are now multiple anthropologists who say the Yuin don't widely use the term so clearly there is some distinction I am missing. Sanglorian (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've wiped out the restructuring I did, and reverted to text that includes "totem" without qualifiers. While some of what you have done has taken into account this discussion, other changes seem to just be reverting to your preferred version. Except for the addition of Bruceanthro (talk · contribs)'s comments above, and the re-instatement of some neutral historical material, the reversion is not an improvement. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Warner[edit]

Harry Warner was a amateur researcher who wrote a lot of information on the Brinja People including my grandmother.

Definitions from Oxford Languages a person who is incompetent or inept at a particular activity. "that bunch of stumbling amateurs"

This very well describes Harry Warner, who I knew personally at Tuross Heads

A more correct reference is A.W. Howitt see link below

To give you some indication of errors

Percy Davis was from Braidwood just south of O'Briens Road

Narramurra or Percy Davis  is the male name i.e. Narramurrene the female name. This gets mixed up with Harry Warner and he called Percy both names, and also calls Percy an Ancient Brinja person when in fact he was a Braidwood man

Guthegar means sea coast therefore Narramurra would be a Yuin of the sea coast which he was Wallendgar see Calling of the Spirits by Eileen Morgan page xiv

Narramurrene is Evelyn Ferguson of Cobargo a Brinja Yuin, Harry Warner mixes the two name at times, the ene is female gender on a name.  

Harry Warner also includes a list of name he says are Brinja or Ancient Brinja which cover most of the Aboriginal people alive in 1968. Most if not all are in fact Wabunja

Harry Warner also says the boundary of the Brinja stops at north side of Narooma. Many researches do not agree with his boundary assessment. The Brinja boundary was Corunna Lake. If you go back in time and the sea level was much higher (Tim Stone in Earth Movements and Archaeology near Braidwood, N.S.W. 1985) Therefore, Corunna Lake was the Brinja boundary. This is also confirmed by the first convict Hunt and Bensen the first Aboriginal convict on the south coast both who worked for John Horden now spelt Hawden the first squatter in sept 1824

I prefer to look at Harry Warner 9 volumes as adding to the general knowledge of the Brinja, and any reference needs to have a second reference in support because of the large number of errors


A.W. Howitt link

https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/data/UQ_319345/AU0094_NativeTribes_SE_Australia.pdf?Expires=1691712309&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJKNBJ4MJBJNC6NLQ&Signature=ZeagMh8RsBBtS9XgcaAYFGIuMfp3Dz2Tv1O8TbyltK-umc-FO4SoNBVQghsgwQqxaUDvCHhFtzH3Q8hWHCcfs4F11iRye5E61e8ousWSPx8lTC0MFYfurLG5qrOKdcrxK~bZLDZ~mNv85QK9gmG2bRxYWT7E9erLA9yr1mioRK37RxKm3sZGoZ6~1kkj2kO3ZVT6uoYunWKAZxvhWVSGtVp40QDVq9SBXL80lo775t10E7c6HMoX4L3aJYYU397-yMsldwdxo32RQ5GiwwDAkxX95TWiKRMM7cA7JBQgMeIdtniSn15qS8~mcov0r8nahhiKaA87EVT8QuwiOuUK8g__ Josu1 (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yuin&oldid=1210098185"