Jump to content

Talk:Jindyworobak Movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misc

[edit]

As there are several hundred distinct aboriginal languages, I have added the word "an" before "aboriginal language" in the sentence:

" . . .applied the name in 1937, which means "to join" or "to annex" in aboriginal language."

I recall reading once that some of the Jindyworobaks opposed Australia's war with Japan, an odd position for an ostensibly nationalist movement to adopt, but can find currently no online support for this claim.

My guess is that they thought perhaps if they avoided declaring war on Japan, it would leave them alone. ! --MacRusgail 19:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
these guys were opposed: Australia First Movement, what you were thinking of?  ⇒ bsnowball  17:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Replacing "Aborigine" with "indigenous Australian" is one thing (presuming you are literate enough to work out "aborigine" means "original inhabitant" - which judging by your spelling, and e.e.cummings impression, you're not), but I provided several sources in my piece. Oh, and by the way, despite its post-modern guise, your own comments are somewhat racist - a European is someone born/bought up/naturalised in Europe, and your argument seems to run that people should only engage in the cultural activities of their own racial group. That the Jindyworobaks were amongst the first whites to promote native rights in the white press, or had a fair number of women in them for the time, seems to have escaped your attention entirely... --MacRusgail 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. Please provide sources for your own comments, as I did.[reply]

  • in the end your personal attacks, especialy your lying about racism, are only going to get you blocked. this apart from being self-defeating. you are also digresing into what i assume is an habitual 'anti-pc' rant, i said nothing about gender. furthermore i am not adding comments, i'm removing unsourced/oppinion & clarifying your misconstructions/distortortions
  • main problem is your unfamiliarity with the topic, for instance, the terms aborigine & aborignal (as genrally considered insulting in aust.) are deprecated, indigenous is prefered, hence those changes, this is not some personal crusade
  • re sources it's only that theyre not properly referenced: title, author p. numbers, (if appropriate) required. (i am not querying veracity the refs tag is a simple pointer to improving the article) find the relevant guidline & read it. i have niether time nor inclination to baby walk u through these rather obvious procedural aspects
  • specific pov problems are that 'mainly white' is untrue they were all white check your sources. also your prefered phrasing "promote aboriginal ideas and customs" (apart from above problems) implies ingamels etc had a reasonably good knowledge of said customs etc. apart from the fact that you can't source this, it happens not the case/ is disputed, (read around if you're genuinely unaware of this)
  • otherwise what i have removed is either unsourced & highly tendentious (i agree w/ some of it, ie the claims of them being 'racist', tho 'ethnocentric' wld be more correct) or your own opinion (ie your offensive theories about other people being racist; wikipedia is not a soap-box, your self-justifications are irrelevant)
  • in general: please adhere to guidelines (ie stop reverting & give up on the personal attacks esp. lying about racism) & remember you are unfamiliar with topic. this will help you to learn something about a particular subject. you may even then be able to contribute usefully, alternatively go and air your opinions on a weblog
  • any more of this behaviour (insults & rving w/ no cause or 'justifications' which are patently irrelevant) will have to deal with through complaints etc.  ⇒ bsnowball  13:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still not using capital letters eh? Is your shift key broken? LOL!!! Sorry, on wikipedia, punctuation and big letters are still mandatory.
  1. Sources were provided, e.g. "excerpt from". You on the other hand, have yet to provide a SINGLE source to back up your opinions (there's only one "p" in "opinion" by the way). In contrast, I have put at least three or four quotes in, from critics such as A.D. Hope, and from writers such as Ms Wright.
  2. It is racist to institute a form of cultural apartheid, whereby whites cannot take an interest in native Australian culture - which is what you suggest. The logical upshot of your idea, as well as being repulsive, is that native Australians cannot participate in white forms of culture, Chinese people cannot cook Italian food, Argentinians cannot write about Mexican matters, and that only native Tasmanians can only write about the Tasmanian genocide. But you didn't think of that did you?
  3. "main problem is your unfamiliarity with the topic, for instance, the terms aborigine & aborignal [sic] (as genrally [sic] considered insulting in aust. [sic]) are deprecated, indigenous is prefered [sic], hence those changes, this is not some personal crusade" - then provide some sources to back up your claim. "Aborigine/al" and "native" are synonyms of "indigene/ous". They did not to my knowledge ever write about the Torres Strait islanders. Your inability to write properly hardly makes you a credible source for such information. "Native" is not offensive.
  4. You also removed this - "This is because until the 50s and 60s, Aboriginal classroom education was mostly vocational, or directed towards Christian missionary work." Can you tell me why? It's perfectly factual. Notice that I also used the term "classroom education" to distinguish from traditional non-European education methods.
    • Unfortunately, I have provided sources, you haven't. "Bring 'em on" --MacRusgail 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. Stop trolling, get sources, and preferably attend adult (assuming you are adult) literacy classes!!![reply]

what i've just removed doesn't have a single reference in it (again, please check WP:CITE for details how to go about this) & with the exception of a single sentance is entirely your own opinion anyway. could you please leave this, no other editor would let it stand either. also stop treating this like its some sort of battle. the point is to write an informative article. grandstanding like 'bring em on' on etc only obscures the fact there's very little to what your saying and that you seem unaware of basic guidlines (WP:CIVIL is probably the most important).  ⇒ bsnowball  08:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i remembered to fix up a link that you keep undoing & re-read what you added earlier. in all seriousness your writing on the article page suffers from most of the criticisms you've made above of my comments. you seriously need to think about basic grammar, logical sequence of ideas, and wether some of those sub-clauses even need to be there. please get someone else to proofread your additions. obviously i can't as you don't pay any attention to the changes i make & reasons for. (leave the last, its an important cross-link, there's a quote from hope he needs to be linked, you've undone my fixing of that once before)  ⇒ bsnowball  09:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a troll, I think a third opinion is needed here. You seem unable to refute any of your claims, and despite complaining about unsourced material elsewhere, seem unable to provide sourced material yourself. fcn illiterit! --MacRusgail 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rewite

[edit]

I added some material to the beginning of the article, there may be some duplication. I propose to change some of the section headings and shift stuff around accordingly. I also added a reference, in a different citation style to the others. Disputed material can be verified with a quote and full citation using the style I have added. I have no objection to moving it to a bibliography section and using a footnote instead. Most of the stuff is fine as far as I can see, it could make a good article. Any else have a view on changes? ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jindyworobak Movement. 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) 23:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jindyworobak_Movement&oldid=1200392928"