Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment/A-Class Review/Yugambeh people

Yugambeh people

– This ACR is open and needs reviewers.

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: The Yugambeh people article is quite comprehensive, broad, and well-cited. It is bordering on FA status as it is, and I think a non-expert would find nothing wanting of it's content.

Nominated by: BlackfullaLinguist (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First comment occurred:

I think you are aiming too high, and not quite familiar with FA standards. It is an extremely demanding process, and this article, while it should aspire to work towards GA review, fails several criteria, the main one being:-

well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;

Whatever goal you choose, you might try to at least get page numbers for every statement sourced to a book. There are several serious WP:SYNTH problems remaining that are 'structural': the synthesis of who the Yugambeh are or self-identify as, 'descendants of 9 distinct clans', while it definitely reflects contemporary Yugambeh perceptions, lacks any solid grounding in earlier texts. I appreciate that the major problem is that the several major sources for the linguistic data which are fundamental for definitions of this kind are ambiguous and often in conflict with each other. An independent eye would probably assess this problem as arising from a desire to compile a picture of unity based on contemporary identitarian perceptions by papering over the fractures in our traditional sources, the dissonances in reportage. These should have been the object of coverage in extenso. Failing to do that, means that the write-up can be seen as picking and choosing bits of information, rather than outlining the variation in received reportage. Goof luck.Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani:, Your opinion of what counts as WP:SYNTH problems is noted, but after reading WP:What SYNTH is not I think you've confused juxtaposing, further explanations, and summarising as violations of WP:SYNTH, see: WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition, WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not summary, & WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not explanation. I have introduced no WP:OR into the article and every idea/theory/statement is supported by a source. This is a plethora of early sources that explain and mention the Yoocum/Yoocumbah/Yukumbil as being composed of a number of hordes or tribes (the word tribe though is absolutely useless though, considering we have every layer of society being referred to as a tribe by one source or another) while yes it's true that no historical source bothered to write about them all or even count them, that does not make any of the individually verifiable statements WP:OR or the juxtaposing of them a violation of WP:SYNTH. Earlier texts are clear on the following points:

1. There is a group of people in the area called the Yugambeh (spelt in a multitude of ways)

2. They are subdivided into a number of tribes/clans/hordes.

3. Across all the earlier material, 9 are mentioned (yes, no earlier source lists all 9, but that speaks to the fact each source focuses on particular subgroups)

But further to the whole point of it, the inferences you drew from a source are not to be presumed to be the implications they intended. That's why I've asked for an independent person's review, someone who doesn't have prejudiced and preconceived notions of Aboriginal groups, because it seems to me you've set your mind on thinking that this is another identitarian politics issue and you consistently move the goal posts. Before, you demanded a source that said all 9, now you demand an earlier source which says it, I'm sure if I found one one day you'd still reject it and move the goal posts further. It's a logical fallacy. All points in the article are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources.

Also, I was going to message about the nominating in any case, but your User page clearly states you're retired, so might want to remove that for clarity's sake. BlackfullaLinguist (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have some experience of FA. Tom Reedy and I were the basic editors of the Shakespeare Authorship Question, rewriting it from the quagmire it was stuck in, down through the FA process. Having been through that review process for some months, I can assure you with some authority, this is nowhere near the standards required.

If by asking for someone 'who doesn't have prejudiced and preconceived notions of Aboriginal groups,' to look at this you mean anyone but me, it's hard to explain why someone with these imputed prejudices would write 660+ articles on Australian aborigines, including 90% of the article on the Kombumerri, one of the 9 Yugambir groups.

I'm entitled to speak because I have made 202 edits to the page, 99.5% unreverted for a total of 35,186 bytes. I may be a white scumbag, but I take the rules seriously and edit according to them.

'All points in the article are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources.'

(a)To be verifiable, you can't simply imply:'I looked. That stuff's in the source'. With very few exceptions, all of the work I introduce is independently verifiable by simply clicking on the links I provide to the page in the source, or by transcribing in a foonote the source text for anything that might be challenged. In either case, no reader needs to trust me; they can see for themselves. That is what 'verifiability' means operatively.

(b) Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses.

In practice this means that corporations, or incorporated bodies cannot be relied on for primary factual material, something the use of Yugambeh Museum Language and Heritage Research Centre (earthstory.com.au. 2017); jellurgal.com.au. Jellurgal.com,Danggan Balun etc. violates, since these sites are also self-promotional. I could go on for several pages.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Offline sources - Offline sources are just as valid as online sources, verifiability has nothing to do with whether a source is available online. A lot of the source material is available in libraries across the country and is easily verifiable, it is a topic with little digital presence. Nothing is stopping you from getting the source material, just your opinion that everything be available online. As to the incorporated bodies point, every institution / body is a registered corporation in Australia, I don't see how that has any bearing on the information they provide, please cite the wikipedia policy that is from. BlackfullaLinguist (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've nothing against offline sources. I don't think editing Wikipedia requires non-Australian residents to take a plane ticket downunder, and, say, check out a library in Brisbane to ascertain the correctness of a reference in a book otherwise inaccessible globally. The usual thing, as per WP:Offlines sources, is to ask the citing editor to scan, say Jefferies 2011 pp87-91, where the Yugambeh are covered, and email a copy to the editor requesting verification. You have my email, and I'd be much obliged if you could scan that and send me a copy.

As to corporations, we require independent third party reportage. We don't trust at sight what any corporate body asserts of itself.

In anticipation.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet A-class standard at present and the nominator has only made one edit since 7 September. Recommend closing. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 01:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]