Talk:Djadjawurrung

Australia: Victoria / Indigenous peoples Low‑importance

	Australia portal Djadjawurrung is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Image copyright problem with File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg

The image File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dja Dja Wurrung. 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) 07:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

Dja Dja Wurrung = should be Djadjawurrung, as per Barry Blake. Please consider renaming the page.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure this is how it should be done? The official government web sites and the Dja Dja Wurrung's own organisation's pages all use Dja Dja Wurrung as does the National Native Title Tribunal . Ian D Clark's Aboriginal languages and clans : an historical atlas of western and central Victoria, 1800–1900, Published: Melbourne, Vic. : Dept. of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, c1990. ISBN 0-909685-41-X, identifies numerous spellings of the word but settles on the AIATSIS use of Dja Dja Wurrung.Garyvines (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gary. In areas as self-contradictory of the historical material on Australian tribes, I’m sure of nothing. Here are the considerations that affected my suggestion:

In his 1995 work Ian D. Clark wrote: Djadja wurrung, and he uses this in his 1998 work '"That's My Country Belonging to Me": Aboriginal Land Tenure and Dispossession in Nineteenth Century,' Western Heritage Matters p.50

(2) The wiki language article for the Djadjawurrung makes the same choice I did
(3) Barry Blake in his Dialects of Western Kulin, Western Victoria Yartwatjali, Tjapwurrung, Djadjawurrung (2011) uses Djadjawurrung throughout.
(4) Norman Tindale (Jaara (VIC) joins the words together, in whatever variant form used in sources to describe them (gives a lot of alternative names including Djadjawurung, and all variants having a form of replication of djadja, i.e. Jajaurung, Jajowurrong, Jajowurong, Jajowrong, Jarjoworong, Jajowerang, Jajowrung, Jajow(e)rong, Jajoworrong, Tjedjuwuru, Tyeddyuwurru, Jarrung Jarrung, Ja-jow-er-ong, Djadjawuru, Djadjawurung, Djendjuwuru).
(5) Dja Dja makes two words out of, apparently, one, djadja which has long be said to be their word for ‘yes’, though this is still hypothetical and based on just a suggestion by the nosey Parkers in the 1880s (Blake op.cit p.11)
(6) Compare the other reduplicative names (with the initial syllables indicating a redoubling of the word for ‘no’) in the Vic /NSW tribes series: Latjilatji, Tatitati, Watiwati, Nari-Nari, Jitajita etc. (The exception is Muthi Muthi).
(7) I have a prejudice of sorts in this, i.e. in making articles, I try to get the historical and cultural data in, and keeping contemporary identity politics out. While I note in the relevant section of each on native title the long-delayed official recognition, and would use the term used in law and by their descendants in those documents and in that section, I’m wary of privileging retroactive agreements by two parties based on modern political agreements and identitarian choices. I’ve eliminated a lot of matter from dozens of articles which is clearly imput from people who allow their sympathies (I’m an extremist in this: I’d be far more assertive in defending tax money use to buy up and return full title and its rights, rather than land use, to aborigines. Theft via murder or expulsive dispersion cannot be compromised with), but the return to tribal identity is best prepared by producing articles that allow all descendants to access directly, via the sources cited, what the historic observers of the tribes before their destruction note, or what the careful scholarship of later generations has established.
(8) That said, one could shift back to the official name Dja Dja wurrung followed by Djadjawurrung, if that is the consensus.I have no strong feelings either way. It just looks silly to me to capitalize the second Dja, from a purely linguistic point of view. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

your arguments seem sound, although there is the complicating factor of the wurrung groups that are a bit all over the place. i.e. Bunurong (Boon Wurrung), Djab wurrung, Djadjawurrung (Djadja Wurrung), Djargurd Wurrung, Taungurong (Daung Wurrung), Wathaurong (Wadda Wurrung) Wurundjeri (Woi Wurrung). For consistency, the bracketed versions could be used.Garyvines (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you decide, Gary, even if that sounds stupidly condescending, for no one on Wikipedia has personal powers to allow or disallow anything. The difference is that you have specialized competence in this field, In any case, I haven't yet had time to address all of the Victorian articles, which I hope to get round to, and will keep an eye peeled for consistency. Regards Nishidani (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The table "Table: reported killings in Djadjawurrung territory to 1859" is onesided, there is europeans killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.99.111 (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the Djadjawurrung so the table naturally focuses on impacts upon them. As to being one-sided, I guess it must also be fair to say that the whole incursion by Europeans into Australia was a pretty one-sided affair all round, no? But if any editor insists, they are free to edit so long as they do so relevantly and with reliable sources. sirlanz 07:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]