Talk:Gadigal

Australia: Sydney / Indigenous peoples Low‑importance

	Australia portal Gadigal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (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.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cadigal. 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) 23:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

This page was created by User:PDH, who left Wikipedia in 2011. The page has only one source for the name, and another source on smallpox, not specific to the Cadigal The Cadigal were just one clan, of 50-100 people, of the Eora. We know nothing of them that does not apply to the Eora generally. In fact we have no description of Cadigal specifics. There is thus no raison d'etre for an independent page, and this should be merged 8effectively means deleting) with the mother page.Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

The reference section of this page is confusing as it is unclear why there are separate "citations" and "sources" sections when they appear to be the same. I am going to attempt to merge them so it is neater and easier to link the information with the source. MalB404 Ⓐ 🏴 (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I had to revert you. In addition to the links I gave in my edit summary, you may also find WP:BCC ("Basic Citation Concepts") helpful. --NSH001 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, I was trying to find info on how to properly cite on Wikipedia and I was finding it difficult to see whether this page was correct or not. I hadn't seen this particular citation style before so it seemed out of place. I see now it does actually resemble many, many pages, just not the ones I usually edit. Two of the links you gave were very helpful but I'm not sure I understand the "dung heap" one. Did you refer to it because the section I erroneously called "references" had a 1 column style? MalB404 Ⓐ 🏴 (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Muhammad Najati Sidqi#References and Khazars#References in edit mode, I think I can see what you mean about the citations. Thank you for your help. MalB404 Ⓐ 🏴 (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cadigal or Gadigal?

I was just wondering why the inconsistency in page title and spelling throughout most of the article. This source, as cited by the article, gives "Gadigal", and that is the only spelling I'm familiar with from afar. GadigalGuy, do you know anything about this? I see that this organisation has chosen "Cadigal", but I think that one way or another the article needs to settle on one spelling, justified by citations and reasons, and keep it consistent throughout the article. Also, from my reading of it, it is not clear whether all Gadigal people are/were Dharug-speakers, or all Dharug-speakers were Gadigal. And the structure needs improvement per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY - there is detail about the history in the lead which is not included in the History section. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Laterthanyouthink Pretty much everyone I know uses Gadi with a G, rarely I'll see people use a C, I'm guessing its written both ways in some old first fleet books because they couldn't determine the difference between the C and G sounds, and people have just ran with it. For consistency and being the most common spelling, I think the article should use a G, no surprises there as obviously it's my preference too with how I refer to myself haha.

As for it not being clear with Dharug, that's a good point. Not all Dharug speakers are Gadigal/Gadigalleon as Dharug is basically Greater Sydney, not just Gadi. But also Gadi is an area where the lines get blurred with language because it's sort of in between two languages, both Dharug and Dharawal are relevant and both would be used. GadigalGuy (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna be bold and move it. Gadigal has much more hits on Google and Google scholar, while they're roughly even on ngrams with a fall off in recent years in favour of Gadigal. I almost exclusively hear Gadigal except when reading older books, but if any Gadigal/Cadigal people have any problems please leave a message and we can change it. Poketama (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to GadigalGuy for the explanation and Poketama for moving. Agree that it seems to be the more common spelling these days. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darug or Eora

Hello all

A couple of editors have had a disagreement over whether the Gadigal should be considered as belonging to the Eora or Darug people. I have changed it back to Eora (with citations) because that is what the majority of reliable sources I have seen state. No source was cited when this was changed to Darug last year. It is also consistent with the article on Sydney. An alternative would be simply omit the phrase "on Eora/Darug country."

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Happily888 There is reliably sourced information that the Gadigal are a clan of the Eora people. Please do not change this without discussion, citing reliable sources.

Thank you Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australia v Argentina Game 2020

Hello all

I have removed the following passage:

"On 5 December 2020 at the international rugby union match between Australia and Argentina in Sydney, a version of the Australian national anthem was sung first in the Dharug language by Wiradjuri woman Olivia Fox and the Australian Wallabies, followed by the English version. However, this was against Cultural Protocols as no Dharug Elders or Community were consulted or authorised the sharing of their language with a non-Dharug singer. This was the first time the anthem had been sung in an Indigenous language at a Wallabies match."

This game was played at BankWest Stadium in Parramatta and therefore has nothing to do with Gadigal country. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Happily888 Further to my message on your talk page about your reverting my change, please note:

1) The passage I reverted was not properly sourced.

2) The following article about this game shows that the Australin Anthem was sung in the Eora language with the permission of the Sydney Meropolitan Land Council.[1]https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/05/wallabies-sing-indigenous-language-australian-anthem-before-tri-nations-draw-with-argentina

3) The article states that the game was played at Bankwest stadium, which is in Parramatta and therfore not on Gadigal territory. It therefore has little if anything to do with the Gadigal.

4) If you want to preserve the text, you will need to find reliable sources for the assertions made in the passage and move it to a relevant article. Perhaps one about the Gannemegal and Boolbainora people. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Happily888 My apologies, I understand your edits now. Please see my concern about the sentence: ""The 1789 smallpox epidemic was estimated to have killed about 53% of the local Dharug population". As far as I can see, it is not supported by the cited source and my wording is a more accurate reflection of the Sydney Barani source which I cited. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smallpox epidemic

Hello all

I have slightly reworded the text here to make it clear that it was the Eora who lost about 50 per cent of their numbers and the Gadigal people were the worst affected. I have removed the Crump source as it is very dated (1914!) and didn't support the content except on the uncontested point that there was a smallpox epidemic in 1789 that killed many Aboriginal people.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]