Talk:K'gari

@Safes007 the independent sources overwhelmingly use 'granted'

Even the Butchulla corporation uses the term granted:

It doesn't matter what silly language a court chooses to use, we are not bound to their erroneous choice of words as these rights did not exist until the court granted them. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Native title rights are those that existed before settlement under local laws and customs. This ALRC report discusses them more fully. Some quotes:

• "native title rights and interests which are the subject of the Act are those which existed at sovereignty, survived that fundamental change in legal regime, and now, by resort to the processes of the new legal order, can be enforced and protected. It is those rights and interests which are ‘recognised’ in the common law."
• "the native title rights and interests to which the Native Title Act refers are rights and interests finding their origin in pre-sovereignty law and custom, not rights or interests which are a creature of that Act"

See also the Prescribed Body Corporate website (run by AIATSIS) definition:

• "The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) is legislation passed by the Australian Parliament that recognises the rights and interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in land and waters according to their traditional laws and customs."

The definition given by the Queensland Government:

• "The Queensland Government does not grant native title. It’s usually recognised through a determination made by the Federal Court of Australia. Native title isn’t ‘won’ or ‘given’ – it’s the legal recognition of rights and interests that have existed for thousands of years."

These definitions of legal terms given by courts and legal experts are far more reliable than general media. Additionally some of sources you cite above use the term "recognise":

• "The Butchulla people were recently recognised in Australian law as holding native title"
• "This landmark legal decision recognised the existence of Native Title across an extensive area covering 1805.0334 square kilometres within Butchulla Country." (The previous sentence refers to the judgment being granted to the Butchulla People, not the rights themselves).

There's no reason for Wikipedia to use imprecise and inaccurate language that may mislead people as to workings and content of native title. The word "grant" implies that native title rights are created by government or courts. To use an analogy, it's like if you sign a contract to buy something and you have to go to court to enforce it. The court doesn't "grant" you a right to the thing you bought, it just recognises the right that already existed in the contract. Safes007 (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The majority of sources use the term grant because they did not have any legal rights over this as the aboriginal people lacked civilisation. Regardless it does not matter, the majority of sources use this language and thus we should use the term they use. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to any evidence that supports this claim? Your assertion that the term grant is used because the Butchulla people "did not have any legal rights" as they "lacked civilisation" isn't supported by any sources and is a misunderstanding of how native title works. The above sources explain why this is inaccurate.

There is no evidence to suggest that the native title rights recognised on K'gari are any different to any other native title rights. In the absence of this evidence, we shouldn't use language that suggests otherwise. The legal sources above explicitly state the use of the word "grant" is inaccurate. I'm happy to clarify further if you have any questions about native title. Safes007 (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is all the sources which use the term granted. We should use language the independent sources use and not based on government casuistry. They did not have any legal rights until the decision granted them such. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You cannot simply make assertions that directly contradict provided sources without evidence. The sources above are not just that of the government, but also from the courts and the independent legal commissions. What is the source for your claim? Safes007 (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is what the independent reliable sources state about the decision, which was that they were granted native title rights. Wikipedia is not a law journal and we use common terms rather than legal terms. This isn't just a news reports getting something incorrect, it is used in academic sources too: Traumnovelle (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources do not state the Butchulla people "lacked civilisation" and hence did not have rights as you suggested. This is what I'm asking about. In the absence of such sources, the corrections provided above should be implemented. I don't know of any academic sources that make such a claim. If you have some that support your claims, please provide them. There is nothing about the current wording that makes it less understandable than "granted" to a general audience. In fact it provides more information and avoids making misleading statements about native title. Safes007 (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not making such a claim in the article. The only thing the article should state is that the Butchulla people were granted native title rights, per the sources itself.

You've also combined two sources to change the meaning of one, that is synthesis. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Synthesis doesn't ban you from using anything but the exact words quoted. It is about preventing the synthesis of new ideas. The "meaning" of the sentence only changes if your alternate legal theory of native title was accepted by any reliable body. Hence why I asked for sources. The articles are discussing the fact of the native title decision, not setting down an alternate legal theory. The fact many of the sources you quote also use the terminology "recognised" indicates this. In the absence of any actual dispute or any sources that support your claims about native title, we should simply use the more accurate language. Safes007 (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Grant versus recognise have different meaning, you have acknowledged that. The difference in wording results in a different meaning. The source 25 is paraphrasing someone else's words, but it also states: 'the determination recognised the ongoing traditional laws and customs of the Butchulla people, while also specifying native title rights' that quite clearly is differentiating the two. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Words also take much of their meaning from the context they are written in. The word "grant" written in the context of an article about the court process above native title that also mentions the determination and recognition of rights does not mislead as to how native title works. However a single sentence that simply states that the Federal Court "granted" native title could suggest that the rights are some new right created by the government. The rewording is to try and avoid this misleading impression.

Also, the quote you cite is simply explaining how native title works and that it originates from local laws and customs. This is explained by the earlier legal quotes above and in the ALRC report more fully at paragraph 4.15:

• "It is thus possible to distinguish between the subject and the product of legal recognition in native title law. The subject of recognition is the set of Indigenous relations ordered by traditional laws and customs. The product of legal recognition is ‘native title’, a set of rights and interests enforceable within the Australian legal system."

Essentially the court recognises both the underlying traditional laws and customs and the native title rights that results from them.

If you still have an issue with the word "recognise", would you be happy to just use the word "determined" like in the judgment? I.e. "In October 2014, the Federal Court determined that the Butchella people held native title rights over the island." Safes007 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No because that is still straying from what the sources state. The government source ultimately makes no sense: if the government did not create the rights then who did, the courts? Traumnovelle (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The rights are those that existed as a result of local laws and customs that existed prior to colonisation. Those rights survived the acquisition of sovereignty by the British. AIATSIS has another good explanatory booklet here to add to the sources earlier (pg 4):

• "native title is a pre-existing right, inherent to Indigenous peoples by virtue of their distinct identity as first owners and occupiers of the land and their continuing systems of law. Native title is not a grant or right that is created by the Australian government nor is it dependent upon the government for its existence although it is dependent on recognition by the common law in order to be enforceable in the Australian legal system."

I am also referring to the language in the judgment. Specifically "The court determines that: ... 4. Native title exists in the Determination Area. 5. The native title is held by the Butchulla People". Using this language gets around needing to decide which of the several words are used to describe the judgment. Ultimately, it is this judgment that is the fact that is used in the article, not the language used to describe it. Safes007 (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This is going no where. We should use the language the sources use to describe it, it doesn't matter how many government institutions write about this absurd idea. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I have requested a WP:3O as I think we are stuck at this point of the dispute. Safes007 (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Determined is an acceptable compromise solution. Per WP:SOURCETYPES, When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. While there are a number of news articles presented that used 'granted', the scholarly sources seem mixed such as which uses recognised and which uses granted. The language the actual ruling uses is neither grant nor recognise but rather determine , as the ruling determines they hold the native rights. Of the sources that use 'granted', this source uses it once in a single subtext beneath a picture, this source used the word recognised throughout it multiple times , this one uses both the words granted and recognised . There does not seem to be a clear preference in the sources between recognised or granted, and there is no reason why the article cannot simply cite the legal judgment for use of "determined", so the encyclopedia should probably use the legal ruling as a source and use determined. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

How can a language without any writing system have a silent K? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I've included a note explaining this, per the Queensland gov. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that note. However, I don't understand at all what the silent 'K' is used due to the Traditional Owners' rendering of the name using the English alphabet. means. Why is that rendering better than 'Gahrie'? I realize that arguing this point is pointless now, but I find it irritating and a unnecessary complication, and articles like Gubbi Gubbi language and Transcription of Australian Aboriginal languages are no help. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I had a go at finding this myself, and at least immediately from searching the internet no explanation comes up aside from that one source, which only offers us The silent 'K' reflects the Traditional Owners' interpretation of spelling the place name using the English alphabet. I did find this, on Gubbi Gubbi (emphasis mine, and I'm not 100% on the reliability of this source):

Historically, with no guidelines or consistency, the Gubbi Gubbi language name was written as Kabi, Kgabi or Gabi. [...] In 1993, the Gubbi Gubbi Elders representing the families of the Gubbi Gubbi language group got together concerned of the mispronunciation of their written name. It was settled to change the spelling of their historically written name from Kabi Kabi to Gubbi Gubbi so the language would be pronounced as intended.

Interesting apparent inconsistency where a silent 'K' was dropped to clarify pronounciation, but was chosen intentionally here. I'm sure there's a good reason for it, but it may be that reason isn't widely known outside of the traditional owners who made the decision. twotwos (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Macquarie Aboriginal Words (2021, ISBN 9781760789749) explains that most Aboriginal languages do not distinguish between 'g' and 'k' (nor between 'b' and 'p', 'd' and 't', etc), which explains 'Gubbi Gubbi' vs 'Kabi Kabi'. For 'K'gari', someone decided to use both, which doesn't make sense – there is only one consonant to be sounded. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)