Talk:Marble Hill, South Australia/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Marble Hill, South Australia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
near the Kaurna "... Jultiwira (stringy bark forests) of the Mount Lofty Ranges ... traditional boundary..."
Mifren, would you be kind enough to give a suitable reference for the above text? I don't find the string "Marble" in http://kudnarto.tripod.com/, for instance, although I thought it might be what you are suggesting. After that we can discuss whether the text is useful in an article on one specific building. (I would find it interesting to know who used the site before the British arrived, but, please, only if you can find a suitable source specifying use of this site.) Further problems with your text are that it does not make anything about this site clear to me. Stringybark forests are mentioned already. And Jultiwira appears to be a redlink; I don't think it's an English word and if it's a Kaurna one it may belong in the article on that language, but not here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Most hits appear to be sites derived directly from Wikipedia, and the rest don't make clear any connection to this site, so yes, it seems clear that this edit is without merit. I propose to revert it again, and I suggest that it stays reverted until its problems are addressed.
Mifren, can I remind you that we are trying to write an encyclopedia article about a building? I applaud your efforts in the direction of justice but this article is simply not the place for them. A brief, well-referenced mention to strictly relevant facts would be welcome, as I've suggested before. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Richard (& other wikiEditors) I have already provided you with the Sovereign facts above.
- Additionally see: http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/Kaurna::sub::Lands
- I've already now reminded you Richard on your Talk page of my own Welsh Sovereignty through Deheubarth Prince Rhys ap Tewdwr Mawr by his wife, Gwladys ferch Rhiwallon. Deheubarth was then (as you possibly well know) conquered by King Henry I of England and the Normans. My maternal maternal (Grandmother Esme) Norwood-Brown Sovereign Anglo-Saxon ancestry Harold Godwinson or King Harold II (Old English: Harold Gōdwines sunu; c. 1022 – 14 October 1066) was the last Anglo-Saxon King of England before the Norman Conquest.[1] Harold reigned from 5 January 1066, until his murder at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October of that same year, fighting the Norman invaders led by William Duke of Normandy. As HM Queen Elizabeth holds Duke of Normandy title, I thus have to question the legitimacy of succession to the Anglo-Saxon Crown and thus your own historical interpretation and comprehension of wikiEditing. In effect supporting 1770 British then since 1801, United Kingdom cultural usurpation of Kaurna Sovereignty. How then can you possibly comment with such a clear conflict of interest?
- Um.... (dumbfounded).... this is a piss-take, isn't it? It just has to be. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'll limit my comment to reiteration. We are here to write an encyclopedia article about a building in South Australia. Native land claims to its site may well be worth brief mention, if a suitable reliable source can be found. I wish you every success in finding, or generating, such a source. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Text of Email from Matther Fowler
|
|---|
|
I've collaped the above note as it does not constructively add to the discussion. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is interesting to see Sovereignty being "collapsed" and reduced from an "::OPEN LETTER RESPONSE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FEAR OR FAVOUR" to a note
"::Especially as our South Australian thus Australian Government has not rejected Sovereignty only our "SA Attorney-General's Department says native title over the site was extinguished in the 1800s."
- http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/01/2614089.htm "
- SA Govt rejects Marble Hill claim
- Posted Wed Jul 1, 2009 5:30pm AEST
- * Map: Adelaide 5000
- The South Australian Government says it has no case to answer in an Aboriginal land claim over an historic site in the Mount Lofty Ranges.
- The Kaurna people wrote to the Governor claiming sovereignty over the Marble Hill ruins and that they were owed nearly $50 million in rent.
- But the SA Attorney-General's Department says native title over the site was extinguished in the 1800s.
- The Kaurna are still negotiating a claim over the Adelaide region, which includes an area to the north of the ruins."" Is it not in the post 1770, 1788, 1836, 1900, 1901, 1986 "Australian" national interest and State thus conflict of interest to do so?121.209.32.93 (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Equally intriguing is "http://www.basicfraud.com/main-0/index.php" ... "This has enormous ramifications when considering International Treaties entered into by the these Governments, any Australian political appointments, the banking laws, the whole Court System, just to name a few, have NO legitimacy and are totally null and void." ... "then you really need to study this website now and learn the truth, as you may have a justified case for 'Human Rights Abuse' and you might even be in a position for a substantial compensation claim against them for 'economic deprivation'" ... "However, if you are an Australian, New Zealander or Canadian citizen who is not being persecuted by your government at present, but who is concerned for your future and that of your Country, this website may then open your eyes to the political and judicial abuse of power and the associated corruption, manipulation and deceptive behaviour" ...Mifren (talk)
- Further details Richard etal may thanks to Peripitus' suggestion be found at: Warrabarna+Kaurna!:+reclaiming+an+Australian+language by Dr Robert AmeryMifren (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I find it intriguing Richard that on one hand there is no contest for the context of wikipedia "English" nomenclature over Kaurna but when it actually comes to Norman B Tindale's anthropological works, there is an amazing silence and or total revisionist history as though Kaurna never existed pre-1836 King William IV South Australia Letters Patent & then Governor Capt John Hindmarsh Commander in chief Proclamation. I was just watching "Women of the Sun" mini-series like John Pilger's "A Secret Country" and wonder where in that spectrum wikiEditors fit? Especially as a medical man your Primum non nocere Oath I thought was to do no harm whereas it seems to me at least that there is a real risk of perpetrating or perpetuating the harm we whitefellas especially as post 1770 Anglo-Europeans or CaucasiansMifren (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- KOBANDIL:A
- KOR:A PERNGGA KAR:AUWIR:APARI
- KOR:AJANGDONGGA MEDAINDI KAINKAWIR:A
- KAR:AWIR:ANGGA WIRUNGGA TANDANJAPARI
- KAR:AWIR:A KOR:AJERTANGGA MARI YATALA
- KOR:APER:E TANDANJARI
- KOR:AWIRA TANDANJA KULKAMAIWAR
- KORAJERTA WAL:INGA
- TARRDARUYA
- POOTBOOBERRIE
- KERTAWITA NGULTA MAJUNAMARTE
- MIMINI MULALA
- BULUMEIL ITINAWAR JURE
- WATIPARINGA
It will be interesting to see how quickly your revert will be ... Mifren (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Richard removing "meaningless" wikilinks
While I concur that there is no meaning for Richard insofar everything is empty and meaningless as http://www.landmarkeducation.com teaches, the meaning for me at least demonstrated the lack of real linguistic translation into standard International English or Australian English for other wikiEditorial awareness raising.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mifren (talk • contribs) 13:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
A reliable source at last?
Mifren has supplied us with SA Govt rejects Marble Hill claim. This is from ABC News (Australia) which I hope is a reasonably reliable source. It does give a very brief account which supports the fact that the Kaurna, not just Matthew Fowler, have made a claim over this specific site, and that it has for the moment been rejected. I have edited the article accordingly.
Mifren, I am less happy to say that I agree with Yeti Hunter; your last edit is at least very close to vandalism. I accept that you are very sincere, but sincere addition of irrelevant material is still unconstructive. I would be reluctant to have you blocked but if you persistently insert irrelevancies into mainspace I will ask an administrator to take appropriate action. Again I repeat: this article is not the place for standing on your soapbox. How would you feel if I were to start replacing the article on England with reams of stuff in Latin, Welsh, Anglo-Saxon and Greek pointing out the illegitimacy of Anglo-Saxon claims to the land, which rightfully belongs to the Roman Empire and their local successors the Welsh princes? Even the Saxons admitted the violent nature of their takeover:
"Ne wearth wael mare
on thys ig-lande aefre gieta
folces gefielled beforan thissum
sweordes ecgum, thaes-the us secgath bec,
eald uthwitan, siththan eastan hider
Engle and Seaxe upp becomon,
ofer brad brimu Britene sohton,
wlance wig-smithas, Wealas ofercomon,
eorlas ar-hwaete eard begeaton."
- This just to make a point: we are here to write an encyclopedic article, and this is a necessarily-limited task. I welcome your knowledge and your good intentions, I wish you and the Kaurna well, but please press your detailed arguments about sovereignty elsewhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely convinced that this outlandish claim is notable enough to appear in this article regardless of the reliable source, although I'm not about to get tendentious about it. All the sources provided for it are entirely unreliable, except the one about the fact that the claim was rejected (thus reinforcing the unreliability of the other sources). I still object to its inclusion on the grounds of WP:REDFLAG (exceptional claims require exceptional sources) and WP:COATRACK - this article is about a building and a suburb. The reference belongs in an article on aboriginal land claims, if anywhere. I mean, there isn't even a reference to the large, Fleurieu Peninsula encompassing Kaurna land claim in the Adelaide article, and that claim at least has a credible legal basis (not to mention dozens of reliable sources). But - I'm only a part time wikipedian and I'll happily defer to consensus. I don't think we have one here yet, even on the pro-inclusion side given Mifren's attempts to expand the section. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)