Talk:New South Wales/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notability

Hi @Aemilius Adolphin: How does WP:PROMOTION apply to this edit?

As to notability this company has its own article, Flow Hive, included in my edit. Many of their sales (probably most) go to overseas customers. We could also add the refs from my edit to their page:

Subotic et al., 2021 finds the Flow Hive causes no microbial changes. They compare Langstroth hives to Flow Hives and find no significant differences in the microbial populations of bees' bodies.

Being studied shows scientific interest. And let's keep in mind that this section is the agriculture page so notability only to agriculture here is normal for that section. Invasive Spices (talk) 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices: I have removed some of the other examples of puffery and promotion of private businesses in this section. The whole section on the economy needs a rewrite because it is mainly sourced from outdated promotional guff from private and government bodies, or is completely unsourced. Indeed the article is poor overall. I rewrote the history section and when I have time (I'm still grieving over the State of Origin) I will replace this with concise factual information presented in a neutral POV using encyclopaedic language. Agriculture is an important industry, but it only accounts for 2 per cent of Australia's GDP (it would be similar for NSW) so the amount devoted to the industry is already way out of proportion. Remember this is a general article about NSW so there is no room for material on one company's product which could be viewed as undue promotion in view of its position in the overall scheme of things. (I also note that the neutrality of the article on this company has been rightly questioned.)Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I referred to the wrong policy. Correct policy is: WP:Balancing aspects WP:Promotion Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think I've ever seen a notable company excluded from its home state/territory/whatever's page. Their design has drawn scientific and agronomic interest. The article's neutrality and not notability was questioned in May of 2020. There has been no further discussion on that and so the template should really be removed. I think we should have it here and any other sufficiently notable companies.

Britannica leads with agriculture: Most sheep, most cattle, most pigs. 39% of the continent's wheat. The lack of content on other subjects is a natural consequence of this being a wiki. Certainly proportionate coverage is appropriate, but would you agree, proportionate to the real world and not to the current level of effort by our editors at the present time. To hold back one section because the others don't attract interest wouldn't be very wiki. Invasive Spices (talk) 15 July 2022 (UTC)

References

The issue isn't whether we put agriculture first in the industry section, the issue is whether one particular small company in a very small sector of one industry in the NSW economy should be mentioned at all in an article about NSW as a whole. I've referred you to the the relevant policies on balance and undue promotion of particular commercial enterprises. I agree that the content of the article should be, as you say, "proportionate to the real world and not to the current level of effort by our editors at the present time." Wouldn't this suggest that if your intention is to improve the article your efforts would be better directed towards adding a short sentence on bee keeping as a whole or improving the information on other industries which are more significant to NSW in the real world? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• It would be better yes but I happened to think of this. That's how wiki content gets added. You're not going to challenge the notability of Flow Hive? Invasive Spices (talk) 16 July 2022 (UTC)

No. But I think it needs a few more edits to improve its NPOV. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Aemilius Adolphin: I'm concerned that you're just reverting my edits and have removed other businesses which have their own articles and thus WP:NOTABILITY. If you don't even question their notability, as you have replied above, why are you removing these? Invasive Spices (talk) 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not reverting all your edits. I reverted your last two for the reasons given. I have already explained that the issue isn't notability, its balance. In a general article about NSW there is no need to provide all the technical detail about crop diseases. There's also no need to provide information about a specific business in a general article when that business represents only a tiny fraction of the NSW economy. The issue there is WP:Balancing aspects and WP:Promotion.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• WP:PROMOTION is still not relevant as WP:PROMOTION itself explains, and WP:NOTABILITY satisfies WP:Balancing aspects. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability is about stand-alone articles, not about balancing aspects of existing articles WP:NNC. Promotion is still relevant and has no place in wikipedia.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Can you name any time when a notable company was excluded from its geographic area's page? WP:PROMOTION says All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources. Those are available and have been provided here. A NOTABLE company with its own article already has those sources provided but I have provided even more in the case of Flow Hive. These companies have passed all standards for existence of articles, which is certainly more than necessary for a mere mention in their state's article. Invasive Spices (talk) 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Policy states: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.”WP:Balancing aspects. Just because a company has an article on Wikipedia, an article whose neutrality is disputed, does not mean that that company should be mentioned in other wikipedia articles. This company is promoting a particular product. It is one small player in a one small sector of one relatively small industry in the NSW economy. Of all the published information on NSW as a whole in reliable sources the amount devoted to this company would be infintessimally small. Your insistence on mentioning this company in a general article on NSW does raise the question of WP:Promotion. You can take this to arbitration if you wish. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"Flora of New South Wales" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Flora of New South Wales and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 2#Flora of New South Wales until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Agriculture

Hello all,

I have moved quite a bit of technical detail about crop diseases etc, from this section and put in in the article Economy of New South Wales as the information was too detailed for a general article about the state as a whole. I have also removed some unsourced information and some images as the number of images for this section was excessive. I will progressively add sources to the remaining unsourced informationin the article. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

New South Welshmen

Hello all

An editor added "New South Welshmen" to the info box as a demonym. I reverted this because the cited sources did not support the statement. The first source was a humorous newspaper article, the point of which was that there was NOT a widely accepted demonym for the people of New South Wales. The second source was about the origin of another derogatory term for the people of NSW sometimes used by Rugby League supporters from Queensland. "New South Welshman" excludes half the population of the state and the cited sources do not establish that it is a widely accepted demonym.

@Bongoau28 Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Googling "New South Welshmen" returns quite a lot of hits. This one includes a list of people with a woman in it. My impression is that it's an older term that doesn't work so well today, but it's still around. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The "hit" you highlighted doesn't seem a very reliable source to me. Just because a word is "still around" doesn't make it a widely accepted demonym, especially among the female half of the population. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and I appreciate your contribution to this discussion. My intention was not to provoke any controversy. However, as per Oxford Languages through Google's definition service, "New South Welshman" pertains to the "natives or residents of the Australian state of New South Wales."[1] I acknowledge your concerns about the phrase "excluding half the population." In this specific context, the term "man" in "New South Welshman" is akin to its usage in the word "mankind." Ultimately, as per the Cambridge Dictionary, "Traditionally, we use man to refer to all human beings, male and female."[2] Therefore, "New South Welshman" is an appropriate demonym to employ, irrespective of gender and/or sex. Bongoau28 (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It might be true that "traditionally" man was used to refer to all human beings, male or female, but you will find that many, probably the majority, of people now find it offensive. There is no need to include a demonym in the information box, and given that you have provided no reliable source showing that "New South Welshman" is still widely used and accepted as a demonym for the people of NSW, both male and female, I suggest that the least controversial solution is simply to leave the demonym blank. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your viewpoint, and I'd like to address the concerns you've raised. While it's true that the term "man" in certain contexts has garnered some controversy due to its historical connotations, it's important to note that the interpretation of language can be subjective and may vary among individuals. While some might find it offensive, there are others who still perceive it within the traditional, all-encompassing framework. Regarding the inclusion of a demonym in the information box, I understand the caution you're exercising. However, I'd like to suggest an alternative that could potentially strike a balance. Considering the evolving sensitivities around language, shall we consider using a term like "New South Welsh" as a compromise? This way, we can avoid any potential discomfort associated with the word "man" while still maintaining a recognisable and inclusive label for the people of New South Wales. By using "New South Welsh" in the demonym, we can respect both the historical usage of the term and the contemporary concerns about gender-neutral language. This approach not only acknowledges the complexity of language evolution but also ensures that the information we present remains accessible and respectful to a wide range of perspectives. Here's a reputable source from the Archives of National Library of Australia, specifically from the Ferguson Collection National Library, Canberra, displaying the term on it's title. If the people wish to dig through the citation they may consider themselves whether to use Welshman as a traditional alternate. Bongoau28 (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"New South Welsh" is even less used than "New South Welshman". I still think leaving the relevant part of the info box blank is the best alternative. It has been blank for quite some time. But let's see what others think. Perhaps a consensus will emerge. I don't think citing a source from 1867 helps your case very much. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Despite the sources on the Simple Wikipedia page, I would like to bring to your attention that the demonym for New South Wales has been a part of the page since January 29th, 2013. I kindly urge you to consider this longstanding presence. Given that over a decade has passed without any apparent negative consequences, it is reasonable to conclude that a public consensus has formed around the usage of the term "New South Welshman." Bongoau28 (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You should not reinstate a bold edit which has been reverted by another editor. The relevant policy is here. Please delete your most recent reinstatement of your preferred demonym and wait until a consensus emerges. If you don't, this could be considered disruptive editing. The simple wikipedia page is a separate document and probably most active editors don't even look at it. I haven't up to now. The point is that the demonym wasn't on the standard wikipedia page which we are discussing here. I would suggest that the simple wikipedia page should mirror the main page, not the other way around. But please revert your last edit and let others have their say. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if I’m coming across as destructive as it's not my intention, I am new and am still trying to learn the reigns. I have removed it as per your wishes. Nonetheless I’ll be closely following the subject, but will refrain from making inputs to avoid impeding. Bongoau28 (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem. You have an arguable position. I just think we should hear what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

As an Australian of mature years, I can remember using "New South Welshmen" long in the past, but not recently. These days I might say something a bit jokish such as "New South Welshie", but not in any formal situation. Mostly, I just avoid using such a noun by restructuring what I am about to say. I just did some Googling, and found nothing at all firm about what noun to use. I think a blank entry in the Infobox accurately reflects modern usage. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Someone put back the denonym "New South Welshman"without discussion. I have reverted it back to the previous consensus position. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

New South Welshmen

Hello all

An editor added "New South Welshmen" to the info box as a demonym. I reverted this because the cited sources did not support the statement. The first source was a humorous newspaper article, the point of which was that there was NOT a widely accepted demonym for the people of New South Wales. The second source was about the origin of another derogatory term for the people of NSW sometimes used by Rugby League supporters from Queensland. "New South Welshman" excludes half the population of the state and the cited sources do not establish that it is a widely accepted demonym.

@Bongoau28 Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Googling "New South Welshmen" returns quite a lot of hits. This one includes a list of people with a woman in it. My impression is that it's an older term that doesn't work so well today, but it's still around. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The "hit" you highlighted doesn't seem a very reliable source to me. Just because a word is "still around" doesn't make it a widely accepted demonym, especially among the female half of the population. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and I appreciate your contribution to this discussion. My intention was not to provoke any controversy. However, as per Oxford Languages through Google's definition service, "New South Welshman" pertains to the "natives or residents of the Australian state of New South Wales."[3] I acknowledge your concerns about the phrase "excluding half the population." In this specific context, the term "man" in "New South Welshman" is akin to its usage in the word "mankind." Ultimately, as per the Cambridge Dictionary, "Traditionally, we use man to refer to all human beings, male and female."[4] Therefore, "New South Welshman" is an appropriate demonym to employ, irrespective of gender and/or sex. Bongoau28 (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It might be true that "traditionally" man was used to refer to all human beings, male or female, but you will find that many, probably the majority, of people now find it offensive. There is no need to include a demonym in the information box, and given that you have provided no reliable source showing that "New South Welshman" is still widely used and accepted as a demonym for the people of NSW, both male and female, I suggest that the least controversial solution is simply to leave the demonym blank. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your viewpoint, and I'd like to address the concerns you've raised. While it's true that the term "man" in certain contexts has garnered some controversy due to its historical connotations, it's important to note that the interpretation of language can be subjective and may vary among individuals. While some might find it offensive, there are others who still perceive it within the traditional, all-encompassing framework. Regarding the inclusion of a demonym in the information box, I understand the caution you're exercising. However, I'd like to suggest an alternative that could potentially strike a balance. Considering the evolving sensitivities around language, shall we consider using a term like "New South Welsh" as a compromise? This way, we can avoid any potential discomfort associated with the word "man" while still maintaining a recognisable and inclusive label for the people of New South Wales. By using "New South Welsh" in the demonym, we can respect both the historical usage of the term and the contemporary concerns about gender-neutral language. This approach not only acknowledges the complexity of language evolution but also ensures that the information we present remains accessible and respectful to a wide range of perspectives. Here's a reputable source from the Archives of National Library of Australia, specifically from the Ferguson Collection National Library, Canberra, displaying the term on it's title. If the people wish to dig through the citation they may consider themselves whether to use Welshman as a traditional alternate. Bongoau28 (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"New South Welsh" is even less used than "New South Welshman". I still think leaving the relevant part of the info box blank is the best alternative. It has been blank for quite some time. But let's see what others think. Perhaps a consensus will emerge. I don't think citing a source from 1867 helps your case very much. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Despite the sources on the Simple Wikipedia page, I would like to bring to your attention that the demonym for New South Wales has been a part of the page since January 29th, 2013. I kindly urge you to consider this longstanding presence. Given that over a decade has passed without any apparent negative consequences, it is reasonable to conclude that a public consensus has formed around the usage of the term "New South Welshman." Bongoau28 (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You should not reinstate a bold edit which has been reverted by another editor. The relevant policy is here. Please delete your most recent reinstatement of your preferred demonym and wait until a consensus emerges. If you don't, this could be considered disruptive editing. The simple wikipedia page is a separate document and probably most active editors don't even look at it. I haven't up to now. The point is that the demonym wasn't on the standard wikipedia page which we are discussing here. I would suggest that the simple wikipedia page should mirror the main page, not the other way around. But please revert your last edit and let others have their say. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if I’m coming across as destructive as it's not my intention, I am new and am still trying to learn the reigns. I have removed it as per your wishes. Nonetheless I’ll be closely following the subject, but will refrain from making inputs to avoid impeding. Bongoau28 (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem. You have an arguable position. I just think we should hear what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

As an Australian of mature years, I can remember using "New South Welshmen" long in the past, but not recently. These days I might say something a bit jokish such as "New South Welshie", but not in any formal situation. Mostly, I just avoid using such a noun by restructuring what I am about to say. I just did some Googling, and found nothing at all firm about what noun to use. I think a blank entry in the Infobox accurately reflects modern usage. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Someone put back the denonym "New South Welshman"without discussion. I have reverted it back to the previous consensus position. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)