Jump to content

Talk:Goulburn

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

Railway

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]


comment moved from article

[edit]

Re "there is no conflict recorded from this period" I dont think this should be included. My dad was born in Goulburn in 1886 (older father) and my family were there from 1830 and there was tremendous deeds done against the Indigenous people in that area as in most areas. That these arent recorded is how it is as who would record it. By deleting this phrase no insult is paid to the Indigneous people. The phrase is a 'whitewashing' one. Using it feeds into the coverup of genocide.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.106 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

  • I understand, but can you help with reliable sources. It is not the intention to cover up killings, deaths, or genocide, or to whitewash - the intention is to have reliable sources to substantiate assertions. We don't want to be held up to ridicule as per William deane and Keith Windschuttle, where the gist of what Deane was saying was lost because he hadn't got it quite right --A Y Arktos\talk 22:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Augustus Robinson

[edit]

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. 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"

[edit]

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

Origin of name

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

[edit]

Footnote 3 ("Goulburn may soon use Recycled water") is now dead, and should be fixed or removed. 86.143.52.96 16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated text to reflect more current information and a new citation. - Fordan (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated section

[edit]

The "Climate" section is entirely made up of outdated and "future" plans. Recent rains have rendered such plans obsolete.

DermottBanana (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)DermottBanana[reply]

Toilets

[edit]

Do we really need a shot of the toilets at St Brigids?

Agamemnone (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings in Goulburn

[edit]

Do we need this many photos of buildings in Goulburn? Are all these buildings significant? If so then perhaps the creation of a new article for Buildings in Goulburn. CamV8 (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goulburn, New South Wales. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goulburn, New South Wales. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 March 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Goulburn, New South Wales → Goulburn – This is the only place name, no need to clarify. 219.79.181.149 (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 4 May 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus found that WP:NCAUST is very clear that WP:PTOPIC applies to Australian place names. RMs are not for campaigning to repeal guidelines you don't like. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goulburn, New South Wales → Goulburn – WP:COMMONNAME, in line with other Australian regional cities; Albury, Cooma, Dubbo, Wagga Wagga etc. Airtone22 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Airtone22: This is not an uncontroversial request given the previous failed move proposal at Talk:Goulburn, New South Wales#Requested move 3 March 2018. A new move discussion would be needed in this case. DanCherek (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Airtone22 and DanCherek: Courtesy pings. Steel1943 (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No need whatoever to add the state. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Same as previous. Helps no reader. Reduces recognisability. Creates confusion with Goulburn being a politician who never even visited. It’s standard in Australia for places to use comma state naming, except for the large amount of surreptitious sneaky moves that occurred in the past. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No need for disambiguation. Henry Goulburn is a forgotten politician and is easily distinguishable by first name.--Grahame (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, rename per WP:NCAUST. As to the 'large amount of surreptitious sneaky moves that occurred", there was a similar RM in the last 12 months for Brewarrina, which resulted in a consensus to move. Colonqu (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NCAUST does not say to shorten Australian place names.
    It really is perverse to see an argument implying a desire for consistency to destroy any possibility of consistency. A large proportion of Australian place names cannot claim PrimaryTopic for their short name, and so for consistency they should all be comma-state. Comma state also has good COMMONNAME claims, is always more recognisable, and always serves the readers better. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Something arguably reasonable about the Brewarrina case was that the name is derived from the local place name. This is certainly not true for Goulburn. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per consistency with WP’s convention to disambiguate only when necessary. The disruptive movement by a tiny vocal number to disambiguate when disambiguation is unnecessary is contrary to community consensus and needs to be discouraged. —В²C ☎ 06:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CONSISTENCY is about similar topics being titled consistently, as presented to the reader. It is not about consistency with convoluted conventions in the back rooms.
    WP:CONSISTENCY can only be achieved by Town, State, and is incompatible with Town,State (if ambiguous) and Town if technically unique amongst extant article titles.
    Town, State has very strong WP:COMMONNAME support, which is why it is to be minimally considered, and is why so many Australian towns were and are created with Town, State formatted titles.
    The WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:COMMONNAME facts feed straight into WP:RECOGNIZABILY. Town, State format is seen in quality references, especially on first introduction as matters most, as well as on signs, in forms, in addresses. Town, State is the format that implies and is implied by a populated place name. Removing the comma-state worsens recognizability.
    WP:PRECISE would be decisive, except that it has been wordsmithed to be self-neutering.
    WP:CONCISE is important, but it does not mean brevity, let alone at all expense. Town, State is not inconcise, the extra characters in the comma-state part convey important information that must be assumed by most readers to achieve recognition.
    User:B2C is at the vanguard of editors seemingly religiously dedicated to title minimisation, and who never have an intelligent answer for how title minimisation helps any reader, without even considering the downside of reduced CONSISTENCY or RECOGNIZABILITY. It’s not as if readers have to type urls. The title is still plenty short enough that there are not line wrapping issues, issues of presentation of the article header on any device; indeed title minimisation necessitates hatnotes that consume valuable article head space, and are unwanted information for readers who actually wanted the page. Hovertext, automatically taken from the url, at incoming links also matters and is a strong reason for a PRECISE and RECOGNIZABLE title.
    These minimalists frequently argue “only when necessary”. “Only when necessary” is an extremist position on any issue that leads to all sorts of difficulties. Many good things “are not necessary”. A meaningful title “is not necessary” because google and wikilinks can help readers find it anyway. So why not abandon titles in favour of short codes, wikidata style? Because this betrays a complete lack of awareness of the purpose of a title at the top of a document. Before you start reading, the title tells you what you’re going to get (in nonfiction, assumed). Wikidata is not for reading. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your interpretation and opinion about application here of COMMONNAME, CONSISTENCY, RECOGNIZABILITY, PRECISION, and CONCISION, not to mention the very purpose of titles, is orthogonal to community consensus and it is disruptive to argue at RMs accordingly. The results here so far are not an anomaly. It’s typical. Please stop. I’ll just add by pointing out that a title in the ‘’Town, State’’ format indicates ‘’Town’’ is ambiguous and this one isn’t the primary topic. That’s fine when it’s true. It’s misleading when it’s false. Which is the case here. This proposal will fix that. —В²C ☎ 08:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The long form is better for readers. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s a valid opinion. But it’s contrary to community consensus which is that titles specify the name of the topic. More helpful descriptive titles are used only when the name alone is ambiguous (and not primary). Changing that would mean changing the vast majority of our titles, almost all of which could be more descriptive and thus “better for readers” in that sense. But that’s not how we choose titles here. I don’t understand why you keep pretending/insisting that we do. —-В²C ☎ 17:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    B2C: No, recent precedent says otherwise, such as the November RFC on regnal names: like NCAUST, it stated that geographical disambiguators could be dropped when the name was unambiguous, but by a strong consensus (and a more than 4-to-1 majority) that part of the convention was stricken and the geographic clarifier added to all affected titles in the interests of improving consistency and recognizability.

    Considering such precedents here is appropriate, and I think strongly suggests we need to revisit similar language in guidelines like NCAUST. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Examining Category:Cities in New South Wales, I see that a clear majority of the cities listed there already include the "New South Wales" disambiguator, and going up a level to Category:Populated places in New South Wales the same is true: 57 of 92 pages have it. I'll look through other states as well when time permits, but my guess is NSW's probably pretty representative: most places have the state, and most places need it. (And I see WP:NCAUST already acknowledges this.)

    When a clear majority of items within a naming convention all require a clarifier, it's a good idea to consider applying it to the remainder that don't, because doing so produces a clean, consistent, and predictable set of titles that follow a single form and that make more sense to users. The alterative, which we have now, is a patchwork where most still have the state but a minority do not, for reasons that we can't expect a reader to appreciate or even necessarily be aware of. (As a practical matter, following a consistent pattern of placename, state should also reduce the need for these kinds of repetitious case-by-case move discussions.)

    In short, though this is inline with NCAUST, NCAUST seems out of step with our need for consistent, reader-first naming, and should be revisited. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • The only thing “out of step” here is your minority (along with SmokeyJoe and a few others) mistaken belief about the existence of a “need” for what you consider to be “consistent, reader-first naming”. —В²C ☎ 17:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Advocating for titling that puts reader considerations first is a "mistaken belief"? No, B2C; please see WP:AT:
"The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists."
In a nutshell, here's a simple example of what I'm referring to:

Current:

  • Place 1, Foo
  • Place 2, Foo
  • Place 3
  • Place 4, Foo

Alternative:

  • Place 1, Foo
  • Place 2, Foo
  • Place 3, Foo
  • Place 4, Foo

Given that all places are in Foo, which pattern do we think would make the most sense to the average reader?
I don't think there's much doubt that it's the second. However much we might care about the ins and outs of title disambiguation, a reader almost certainly will not. They'll just notice that Place 3 is weirdly inconsistent, for reasons they probably don't know or care about. Personally, I don't think that's good — and I think it could and should be better.
The only reason I can think of to stick with the current arrangement is that it soothes certain editors' desire to apply disambiguation in a mechanical and exceptionless way... but to be honest, I don't care about that, and more to the point neither does policy. I care instead about consistency and clarity for the average reader, and the alternative is quite clearly better in that regard. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read my words as carefully as I choose them. I’m not questioning the goal of putting readers’ interests first. I’m saying the community disagrees with your opinion that including the state in the title when it’s not needed for disambiguation is in the readers’ interest. —В²C ☎ 20:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recent consensus decisions like this suggest otherwise: a naming convention allowing geographical disambiguation to be dropped for unambiguous titles was amended to allow the disambiguator on all titles, in the interests of consistency and recognizability. Given the strong consensus, revisiting the same question in NCAUST seems worthwhile. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons above. Given that the majority of these places seemingly need the state name attached regardless (and only a minority do not), I also think we need to revisit NCAUST's guidance; consistently applying the state throughout would solve a number of problems, improve recognizability and consistency, and reduce move debates. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goulburn&oldid=1202400081"