Talk:Perth/Archive 5

I reverted new changes by 175.39.209.155 . Old aboriginal name of a historical place to use for modern!!! city is absurdal and debatable, especially in the intro. A metropolis called "Perth" is not the same as "Boorloo" (only partially overlaps). A clear consensus is required per Wikipedia:CYCLE (new edit + revert by other user = discuss and consensus), Wikipedia:Stable version (stable old version takes precedence over the new disputed edition) and Wikipedia:Consensus. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• User/IP 103.101.170.85 also objected to the new chenges . IP justified the point very well, I quote: "'Perth' refers to a metropolitan city in Western Australia that was founded by British settlers/prisoners in the early/mid-1800s. It is my understanding that First Nations people who were hunter-gathers in the general area where Perth was founded used the word "Boorloo" to refer to a swamp or swampy area in what is now the area where the Perth train station is located. As 'Perth' and 'Boorloo' refer to physically and historically distinct entities, these two names should not be used interchangeably". Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Article seems to say the term "Boorloo" refers to only a small section of Perth. Maybe contemporary usage is that the term "Boorloo" applies to the whole metropolitan area. I don't really know, hopefully someone who knows more can weigh in. Either way, it seems the situation is a bit too nuanced for a lead section, and so I vote for removing any mention of the Noongar name of Perth from the lead. Also note: Boorloo has been in the lead for some months, making it part of the stable version, and so I have reverted back to that version. Steelkamp (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    • There was another version (not, in first sentence). And also, this version it did not function for a long time. The guidelines (WP:CYCLE etc) are there to avoid conflicts. In this situation, @Steelkamp: - you did not have the right to restore the new version, because it is not a stable version (a year ago there was another version and it was not functional for a long time). You should undo your change yourself and admit your mistake. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

    The reference used in the Prehistory section says "the Perth CBD area, also known as Boorlo or Burrell in the Noongar language". Mitch Ames (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

    exactly. Everything (common sense, sources) indicates that 'Boorloo' only applies to part of today's Perth CBD/center, and this word cannot be equated to modern Perth metropolitan are/metropolita city. We can mentioned about "Boorloo" in the article, in one of the sections but the name can not bein intro because: 1) there is no evidence that the name relates to the Perth metropolitan area 2) there is no clear definition of what exactly the word of "Boorloo" covers 3) applying a name to which there are doubts violates Wikipedia rules, Wikipedia standards and common sense. Thus, this word should be removed from the intro entirely. If it needs to be in an article, then only in a section, never in intro. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 09:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

    I searched https://www.noongarculture.org.au/ to see if there was a definition of the scope of Boorloo but can't find any mention of it, or Burrell.

    Someone who might be able to help: @Gnangarra: Do you know of any reliable sources (preferably online) that define the scope of Boorloo in current Noongar (or other) usage - in particular, whether it covers the whole Perth metro area, or just (approximately) the CBD?

    Mitch Ames (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

    • Boorloo is the CBD area, Whadjuk boodjar is most of the Perth metro area see map. You cross matagarup to reach Boorloo. Gnangarra 10:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

      • to complement gnangarra's information it is worth having a look very carefully at https://gnarlaboodjamap.dlgsc.wa.gov.au/#/home JarrahTree 11:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

      Thanks Gnangarra. Is there a reference we can cite? It's not clear whether "Whadjuk boodjar" is a proper noun, or merely a description ("Whadjuk country"). The sentence-case body text in https://www.derbalnara.org.au/nyungar-boodjar suggests a common noun. Of course it's possible that the distinction between proper and common nouns does not map directly between the languages. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

      • the issues is you are trying to make a european colonial concepts equate to something that doesnt exist in the traditional Nyungar concepts. This place we call Perth metro is Whadjuk Boodjar - Country where the Whadjuk people are the custodians and knowledge holders. To the north & north east the Yuet/Yuat/Juat people are the custodians and knowledge holders. In both case the people "belong" to the land, where as the European concept is that the land is something that is possessed by and belongs to someone which must therefore have a physical identity. Also its worth noting that the lines on Tindale's map arent definitive either because he too was trying to do what is trying to be done here and create european constraints upon the areas. Gnangarra 12:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

        Gnangarra makes what appears to be a valid point that the non-aboriginal concept of Perth does not exist in traditional Noongar culture. Thus, 'Perth' (a city) is not the same (never was, never will be) as the Noongar land entity 'Boorloo'(always was, always will be). Rather than insinuating that the two are the same in the first sentence of the 'Perth' Wikipage, this cultural dichotomy merits being elaborated on later in the article. Indeed, highlighting the distinction between these two entities would be an NPOV way to respect and present both cultural perspectives. Simulaun (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

        The "Prehistory" section already does this, although the sentence "The Noongar name for Perth is Boorloo" needed qualifying (even though it is followed by a more specific definition of the original scope) - hence this update. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

        @JarrahTree: Where in https://gnarlaboodjamap.dlgsc.wa.gov.au/#/home is "Boorloo" (the topic of this discussion) mentioned? Neither my eye nor a text search can find it. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

        https://www.dlgsc.wa.gov.au/department/publications/publication/gnarla-boodja-mili-mili-(our-country-on-paper) (which links to https://gnarlaboodjamap.dlgsc.wa.gov.au/#/home) is also worth having a look very carefully at, especially the text that says (with my emphasis here) "names of Noongar places throughout the Perth CBD area, also known as Boorlo or Burrell in the Noongar language", thus addressing the primary issue of whether Boorlo[o] denotes a small (suburb/CBD size) area or (roughly) the whole metro area. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Here is a map showing "Boorloo (Perth)". From the context (surrounded by other names in the same font size) it's clearly Perth CBD, not Perth metro. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• So, the scope of the article and Perth metropolis (based on European standards) differs from Aboriginal entities. Whadjuk or Boorlo are not synonymous of the metropolis of Perth, are other issues, differing in definition and standards. In one of the sections of the article we can write that the Whadjuk or Boorlo are now part of Perth (metropolitan city/area), nothing more. Now, this new change is totally absurd, a completely hypocritical and manipulated change. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think that comments like this old aboriginal name of a historical place to use for modern!!! city is absurdal and debatable is offensive and disrespectful to Australians and in particular members of Australia's first nation. The Nyungar people still exist and their language is very much alive and becoming increasingly commonly used, in recognition that they were the first inhabitants of this area not white Europeans. This is reflected across Perth, and particularly by local governments, including the City of Perth. For Subtropical-man to insinuate that it is a historical term reflects his basic misunderstanding of Australian Aboriginal culture. Dan arndt (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Boorloo generally describes the territory, on the northern side of Derbal Yaragan (Swan River), it is not just the small area, currently defined by some as the Perth CBD. Subtropical-man has gotten it all wrong in stating "that the Whadjuk or Boorlo are now part of Perth (metropolitan city/area), nothing more." Whadjuk Boodjar and Booroloo are still are used to describe the area that is encompassed Perth not the other way around. Noting that the non-indigenous settlement that makes up the metropolitan area of Perth has grown successively over the decades and now covers a number of different Nyungar areas. Suptropical-man's arguments are like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with a sledgehammer. Dan arndt (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Boorloo generally describes the territory, on the northern side of Derbal Yaragan (Swan River), it is not just the small area, currently defined by some as the Perth CBD. — Could someone please provide a reliable source that clearly shows the limits of what Boorloo encompasses. It doesn't have to be a survey drawing, but something that at least has lines on a map (that we can match to modern place names) delimiting Boorloo from what is north/west/east/south of it. E.g. the map on does not have any such lines - we can't tell just from that map whether Boorloo goes all the way up to Waylo's territory or not. Likewise we can't tell from that map whether the area north of Wurerup (Upper Swan), between Gynning (Ellen Brook) and Gogulger (Avon River), is part of Boorlo or Mandoon (both written in the same slightly larger font) or something else. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Mitch Ames, aboriginal areas/territories were not defined by cadastral boundaries, they were based on landmarks and geographical features (almost all of which no longer remain) which are passed down through oral histories. You can not transpose European concepts such as territorial boundaries on Aboriginal concepts, the boundaries of different Nyungar groups often overlapped. Dan arndt (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes I get that, but Wikipedia requires reliable sources, not the assertions of editors, no matter how well informed they may be. I'm simply asking for those references.

A primary issue is whether Boorloo and Perth (metro area) cover approximately the same area. E.g. the Perth metro area / article includes Singleton, Western Australia. Is the location of that suburb part of Boorloo or not? What about any suburb north of between Ellen Brook and Swan/Avon River (see my previous post)? What reliable source could I use to answer those questions? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that Subtropical-man's comments are disrespectful and not representative of how these matters should be discussed.

On the substantive point, I think a case could be made that while Boorloo may originally have referred to just the area that covers the Perth CBD, that it has come to be used as the Noongar term for Perth more broadly. Just some examples where Boorloo is used to mean Perth and google throws up many more:

https://boorloo.com.au/

https://museum.wa.gov.au/explore/articles/pride-place-wadjukwhadjuk-boodja

https://visitperth.com/events/interactive-noongar-storytelling-with-boorloo-aboriginal-cultural-experience-2022

https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2021/08/Boorloo-Bidee-Mia-homelessness-service-opens-in-Perth-CBD.aspx

https://www.welcometocountry.com/blog/team/narelda-jacobs/ The Logical Positivist (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you quote the parts of those references that say, for example, "Perth metro area", as opposed to Perth (suburb) or "Perth central business district" (that being the issue I'm trying to resolve)? All I can find is that Boorloo is "Perth", without qualification. Note also that:

• https://museum.wa.gov.au/explore/articles/pride-place-wadjukwhadjuk-boodja says "There are many stories to share from the diverse cultures that are present here in Boorloo (Perth)" - but "here" is the Western Australian Museum in the Perth Cultural Centre. Not strictly CBD, but not far off it.
• https://visitperth.com/events/interactive-noongar-storytelling-with-boorloo-aboriginal-cultural-experience-2022 is the "Visit Perth" website published by the City of Perth. The CoP is bigger than the CBD, but I don't think they want us to visit the whole metro area; eg "Getting Around Perth" tells us how to get around the CBD, without mentioning the suburbs, and there are plenty of Things To See & Do In Perth, ie "in and around the CBD".
• https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2021/08/Boorloo-Bidee-Mia-homelessness-service-opens-in-Perth-CBD.aspx is about the "homelessness service [in the] Perth CBD"

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The Boorloo Aboriginal Cultural Experiences page (https://boorloo.com.au/) states:

"Ngarla wonju noonook Boorloo. Kaya kaya boorla noonook. We welcome you to Boorloo (the Noongar name for 'Perth WA'). Hello. Hello to you all."

The media statement about Boorloo Bidee Mia states "Boorloo Bidee Mia, which represents 'Perth pathway to housing' in the Whadjuk dialect of the Noongar language".

This page (https://www.metronet.wa.gov.au/news/latest-news/category/miscellaneous/whats-in-a-noongar-place-name) lists Noongar place names and says: "Wadjemup (Rottnest Island), Boorloo (Perth), 'Kaarta Gar-up' or 'Mooro Kaarta' (Kings Park) are all Noongar names."

While these do not set out geographic boundaries for Boorloo, what they instead suggest is the usage of Boorloo as the Noongar word that now means Perth. I would suggest this is more useful than attempting to match geographic boundaries as the boundaries of a metropolitan area aren't static - Perth has expanded countless times over the years and it would seem to make it an impossible exercise if were then to say that a name would suddenly no longer apply when metropolitan boundaries shift again. (I hope that makes sense). The Logical Positivist (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

As pointed out by Mitch Ames, "Boorloo generally describes the territory..." Perth, on the other hand, describes a city. This is essentially the point made by Gnangarra, that Perth (human made) and Boorloo (a land area) are fundamentally different things and have different meanings/importance to different cultures. Whether or not 'Perth' is situated on land known to some as 'Boorloo' does not change the meaning or cultural significance of either one. To incorrectly use one when referring to the other is, therefore, inappropriate and culturally disrespectful. Simulaun (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a good point. The Logical Positivist (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be based on facts, not guesswork or opinion. None of the sources listed above say exactly that the "Boorloo" is the Perth metro. Attempt to use as source sentences such as "The media statement about Boorloo Bidee Mia states about" Boorloo Bidee Mia, which represents 'Perth pathway to housing' in the Whadjuk dialect of the Noongar language" etc is an extreme version of the Wikipedia:Original research. Despite the extensive discussion, there are still plenty of doubts and denials and and I would like to remind you what the discussion is about: introducing the term of "Boorloo" to the intro of the article! Yes, to intro! The issue of "Boorloo" is too debatable that even we should consider removing any mention of it in the main city article of city.... but some users are discussing here to insert such a controversial quetia into the intro/lede of article? It's not discussion about respecting the aborigines or similar. This is not a kindergarten. There is no clear definition of the word of "Boorloo" supported by the reliable sources = no possibility to use the term in the article, especially in lede - Wikipedia's rules are clear and obvious. Wikipedia:Core content policies are not negotiable. As can see above, we have searched the Internet and not found reliable sources detailing the definition of "Boorloo" relative to Perth metropolitan city, so, this change is completely unacceptable. Further discussion should only concern whether in any section in the article we should describe something about "Boorloo" or not. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Boorloo as the Noongar word that now means Perth — The issue is that "Perth" (without specific context) is ambiguous - it could be Perth (metro area), Perth (suburb), or Perth CBD, all common usages. None of the links tell us which of those meanings of Perth is intended, and some imply (see my previous post) CBD. Your new link https://www.metronet.wa.gov.au/news/latest-news/category/miscellaneous/whats-in-a-noongar-place-name, doesn't qualify "Perth" either, but in the context of Metronet, "Perth", when in a list with Rottnest Island and Kings Park (both relatively small areas, all part of Perth metro) would easily be intended as Perth CBD or suburb.

I realise that the Perth metro area keeps changing, and that the Whadjuk names don't necessarily match non-Indigenous boundaries, but we are talking about is a significant difference in scale - a CBD/suburb-sized area vs 6,000 km². All I'm trying do is to find a reliable source that states unambiguously which of those two it is. Perhaps in current Noongar usage "Boorloo" has multiple meanings in exactly the same way that "Perth" does in English, and so it is ambiguous and context-sensitive. If so, is there a reliable source that says that? Or several different sources, each of which unambiguously define or use the word with a different scope (suburb vs metro area), so that we can deduce (at the risk of WP:SYN) that modern Noongar usage includes multiple scopes, as does common usage of "Perth"?

(Remember that the point of this issue is: does Boorloo mean the same thing - or at least geographic area - as the "Perth" described by the Perth article - ie (roughly) the Perth CBD and metro area?)

Mitch Ames (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not just that "The issue is that "Perth" (without specific context) is ambiguous - it could be Perth (metro area), Perth (suburb), or Perth CBD, all common usages". There are sources describing the "Boorloo" as terrain on one side of the river or specifically identifying the "Boorloo" with the center/CBD. Indeed, one could choose the most representative sources and descriptions (at the risk of Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS) and write briefly about it in one of the sections, but this does not change the fact that such editions in intro are unacceptable. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There are sources describing the "Boorloo" as ... — Could you please provide links or other details of these sources. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Mitch Ames - I think the points you make are good ones and the edits you have made to the page already may be the most appropriate way to address it. I wonder if they could perhaps be moved into the intro itself (as the Noongar people have a continuing connection to the land that isn't limited to pre-history), but that is just a thought.

Subtropical-man - you need to check your language and attitude. It is offensive to refer to Aboriginal people as "aborigines". Being disrespectful is not the marker of having aged beyond kindergarten that you seem to think it is. The Logical Positivist (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding - I still think this discussion about editors' language (rather than the meaning of the word Boorloo) would be better kept separate, but I acknowledge Subtropical-man's objection. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The Logical Positivist. Looking at the dictionary, "aborigines" is also a valid/correct word and is not offensive. I think strictly and methodically: if the change is controversial, important to me are facts and reliable sources that show directly the topic, without any doubts. I am not going to offend the any aborigines incuding Australian "Aboriginal people". Stop accusing me of this. I look at the problem from a third perspective, because I see that many of you have a problem with emotional support of Aborigines even at the expense of Wikipedia principles. Maybe for users born in Australia, "Aboriginal people" are too important, but it doesn't matter here because Wikipedia is not rosary group or kindergarten. It doesn't matter how important "Aboriginal people" are to Australians, Wikipedia is not owned by the Australian nation and Wikipedia has its rules. There are no reliable sources defining the problem = there is no Aboriginal name in the intro of the article. Simply. This is not an attack on "Aboriginal people", I am neutral towards them, but I cannot allow to favor the Aboriginal language to break Wikipedia's rules and standards. It is also worth noting that the problem of this thread of discussion concerns the breaking of two Wikipedia principles: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, your idea above (first paragraph) could possibly break the third rule of Wikipedia:Core content policies - Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Why do you want to write about one group of people ("Aboriginal people") in the intro and ignore the others? The New World has been inhabited since prehistoric times by various tribes, for example: in America the Indians lived, and they are still alive. Almost none articles about American cities do not mention Indians in the intro of article. Your Australian point of view violates Wikipedia rules. The rule is simple: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It literally says in link you have included to that dictionary page that is offensive and that it should not be used to refer to Aboriginal people in Australia. I would suggest reading what you linked. The Logical Positivist (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

this is first link I found in Google ;), I didn't even look at it. I can give you 10 other links that the use of "aborigines" is correct. I do not live in Australia, I write to everyone regardless of nationality, I use the standard universal dictionary word used in the world (maybe without Australia). I'm not going to offend anyone, I think the word is correct. I think this topic is closed. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that this topic has closed or been resolved. Dan arndt (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I wrote about used word of "aborigines". Maybe in Australia it is a taboo or similar, but in the world this word is widely used, it does not break any Wikipedia rules, no one has the right to stop me from using the word of "aborigines"... and this issue can be considered closed. Of course, the topic of the use of the Aboriginal name of "Boorloo" in the article may still be debated. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the use of First Nation names for well-known cities in English language countries should follow the example set by Wikipages for Canadian cities. Indeed, while the names 'Vancouver', 'Ottawa', and 'Montreal' are of primary relevance and interest to Wiki users worldwide, their First Nation names K'emk'emeláy̓, Odàwàg, and Mooniyaang/Tiohtià:ke tsi ionhwénts are of peripheral interest and hence not presented/mentioned until the Etymology/Name section.

The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to provide useful and intelligible information. This worthy mission should not be compromised by special-interest political ideologies. Simulaun (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The Indians lived and still are in two Americas, not only in Canada. Unless they are the overwhelming majority, writing only about aborigines in the intro of article about city is against Wikipedia rules (WP:NPOV). As I mentioned earlier, you can write a sentence about aborigines in the section e.g. demographics (next to other nationalities). I don't see a problem with that. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: I see informations about , I quote: 1.6% of the population, or 31,214 people, identified as Indigenous Australians (Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders) in 2016", so - problem solved. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

G'day, I'm new to this thread but what the hell. @Subtropical-man: You are speaking about a tyranny of the majority, for a start. Not to mention that as a European, this is a foreign experience to you, and I must also accentuate to you that is meant to be written in Australian English with all the conventions (and cultural inhibitions) that apply. I'll be with the majority in that I agree that NPOV can be used to moderate discussions about incredibly fraught and controversial subject matter. However it can also be utilised to further silence and marginalise those who have traditionally been side lined as insignificant by a majority, and bury truth under appearances of neutrality. As much as we Wikipedians pride ourselves on our site's NPOV, we must admit to each other and ourselves that we have terrible biases and blindspots due to the English Wikipedia's homogeneity.

Additionally, a sentence cannot sum up the immense fields of underlying subtext and sentiment when a discussion occurs about the fact that the traditional owners of the land are now a minority within lands they once took care of. It would be almost analogous as saying that because Poles were a minority in Danzig/Gdansk compared to Germans, that they should only be spared a short paragraph and a couple sentences about their deep history and culture within the area for the period in which Poles were the minority. And while not directly a 1 to 1 experience, it does put into perspective a prospective similarity between a European people and the Aboriginal peoples of Australia in respect to the tyranny of the majority. For what if Gdansk was permanently Danzig, and the Polish name had be fought for to be recognised... would you expect for us Australians to be petty over the etymology of a name? To seek the explanation over where the proper geographic location of the name should sit?

And this whole section was started because a Noongar speaker has not gone on record to clarify what Boorloo is referring to. Which I might add is a common occurrence for a marginalised community, who are displaced (culturally or physically) and no longer truly trust European institutions; not to mention that ALL Australian languages are essentially dying off because of European colonisation. And I can't personally say that I am attuned perfectly to these issues, because I fit into many demographics that are majorities or significant minorities which have afforded me many opportunities. But I can at least try to empathise and respect the traditional owners of Australia. These are just my thoughts of a section that, in my opinion, just escalated and got out of hand over an issue that only required clarification not an entire reckoning of a language and its worth; sorry to anyone who believes that this is just a rant that is barely connected to this talk page... I just needed to get this off my chest, so thanks for sticking with. IronBattalion (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Very emotional thoughts, however, they are more suited to the blog. It's not my fault or yours that the Wikipedia rules have been in place for 20 years and were here before you (in 2020) and I (in 2010) joined to Wikipedia. We are here and we must respect rules. Greetings, Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Subtropical-man - The NPOV rules certainly do not require removing all reference to the people who lived on the lands that Perth sits for over 38,000 years and who are recognised culturally and in legislation as the traditional owners of the land from the intro, as you seem to be suggesting. That would not be a case of having a NPOV, but would instead be a case of promulgating a clear Anglo/European bias in the article.

It is disappointing that despite it being pointed out that the language you are using to describe Aboriginal people in Australia is offensive, that you have instead chosen to double down and keep using it. The Logical Positivist (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't speak Noongar, so if I say anything below that is incorrect, I would appreciate if anyone that does would correct me.

1. Currently, Boorloo means Perth in Whadjuk Noongar (https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2021/07/New-100-bed-homelessness-facility-to-open-in-Perth-CBD.aspx, https://www.wa.gov.au/service/community-services/accommodation-services/boorloo-bidee-mia).
2. All the ambiguities that apply to “Perth” also apply to “Boorloo”.
3. I find the etymology of the names of the primary subject matter of this article very interesting and IMO worthy of being included in the article. For Boorloo, it is roughly:

1. The area occupied by the Perth conurbation today is NOT coincident with the area of the Perth settlement on 12 August 1829. (Neither is it the same settlement; it has changed beyond just growing. But it is still Perth.)
2. The settlement of Perth on 12 August 1829 was in a broader area called Boorloo. 
3. Sometimes when we map stuff we can’t, or don’t have to, or don’t want to, figure out exactly where something begins and where it ends. And that is fine because “text for broader geographic features can be placed around an arc, to convey a sense of a broader area, or to follow the curve of a river, mountain range, coastline, etc” (see Template:OSM_Location_map#arc). Where EXACTLY does the Bull Creek meet the Canning River, and it the Swan River? We know broadly, but there is no single mathematical point, nor does there NEED to be one.
4. Boorloo was settled before 12 August 1829, and when Perth grew beyond the broader area called Boorloo, Boorloo began to grow with Perth. 
5. The Perth of today far exceeds the original broader area called Boorloo. Therefore, without needing to know where the exact borders of the original Boorloo were on 12 August 1829, the Boorloo of today is entirely coincident with the Perth of today.

Betterkeks (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Your points 3.1 and 3.3 are clearly valid, but I do not think that 3.4 (second clause) and 3.5 - i.e. Boorloo grew with Perth - logically follow from 3.1, 3.2, 3.3. Boorloo was defined by Noongar criteria (probably by geographic features) independently of the British, eg "big swamp", referring to the body of water at Point Fraser.^[1] The British came, set up camp at or near the same place, and then gradually spread out. But Boorloo did not mean "area where the white man lives", so there's no reason why the area of Boorloo should automatically change - the British spread out, but the "big swamp", or specific body of water, did not. That would be like saying that "Swan River" now means the whole metro area because the Swan River colony grew. I suggest that it is not valid to deduce that the Noongar word Boorloo has changed its meaning just because the English word Perth has.

It's entirely plausible that Boorloo in current usage does cover the entire metro area, and/or is ambiguous (as Perth is), but we need a reference that says so explicitly - and (as I've previously mentioned) no reference presented thus far seems to do that. Surely, if it is indeed the case, someone can find a reference (and quote the relevant bit of it) that explicitly and unambiguously say either that 'Boorloo means all of Perth metro area, or that Boorloo could mean either the small specific area OR all of Perth metro area depending on context (as Perth does). Mitch Ames (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

In 1829, Boorloo (or Boorlo) was a broader area within Yellagonga's (or Yellowgonga's) area at the northern shore of the Swan River (see map at https://www.derbalnara.org.au/whadjuk-boodjar and page 10 of https://parks.dpaw.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/downloads/parks/Indigenous%20history%20of%20the%20Swan%20and%20Canning%20rivers.pdf)

1. "It is thought Mooro country extended north of the Swan River to Moora, west to the Indian Ocean, and east to Ellen Brook. The area includes Perth city and its northern suburbs. Yellagonga's main campsite was where Bishop's House in Spring Street, Perth, now stands." (https://www.austlit.edu.au/austlit/page/A123495)
2. "The area in which Perth is currently located, Boorloo, formed part of the Mooro, the tribal lands of Yellangonga, a Noongar leader and elder, whose group was also one of the several collectively known as the Whadjuk." (https://parks.dpaw.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/downloads/parks/Indigenous%20history%20of%20the%20Swan%20and%20Canning%20rivers.pdf, p. 10)
3. "Boorloo is Yellagonga’s territory" (https://kuraree.heritageperth.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Kuraree-catalogue-low-res.pdf, p. 2)

Today, Boorloo means Perth.

1. "Perth itself is known as Boorlo or Burrell in the Noongar language." (https://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-noongar-place-name-map.html?m=1)
2. "We welcome you to Boorloo (the Noongar name for 'Perth WA')." (https://boorloo.com.au)
3. "Named Boorloo Bidee Mia (‘Perth pathway to housing’ in Noongar), the facility …" (https://nit.com.au/new-100-bed-homelessness-facility-to-open-in-perth-cbd-from-august-1/), where Boorloo (or Boorlo, or Burrell) means Perth, Bidee (or bidi, or biddi as in Munda Biddi Trail) means Path, and Mia (or Miya) means house or home. Further references for this have also already been provided above so I won’t repeat them here.
4. "In 1829, the area that became the City of Perth, or Boorloo, was in the boodja of Yellagonga, a Whadjuk Nyoongar leader, and his family. Yellagonga’s boodjar took in the land north of Derbarl Yerrigan [Swan River], from the sea to Ellen Brook and north to Moore River." (see https://kuraree.heritageperth.com.au/kuraree/yellagonga-boodja/, when "City of Perth" is read to mean city of Perth the conurbation rather than City of Perth the LGA; note that the broader area on the map on page 10 of https://parks.dpaw.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/downloads/parks/Indigenous%20history%20of%20the%20Swan%20and%20Canning%20rivers.pdf exceeds the boundaries of City of Perth the LGA)

However, Boorloo is also sometimes (possibly erroneously) used to denote today’s Local Government Area (LGA) and the CBD.

1. "The Perth CBD area is referred to as Boorloo in the Nyoongar language." (https://developmentwa.com.au/docs/projects/redevelopment-areas/perth-city-link/DA-Lots-13_14_8006/E.-ECU-City-Campus---Cultural-Narrative.pdf, p. 5). Note the author’s use of Wikipedia.
2. "The site of what became the Perth CBD (Boorloo) was particularly rich with ..." (https://www.museumofperth.com.au/aboriginal-places-life-prior-to-1829). However, since the focus is on the site (it is what was "particularly rich") it is possible the author intended "The site (Boorloo) – of what became the Perth CBD – was particularly rich with ..."
3. "acknowledging the names of Noongar places throughout the Perth CBD area, also known as Boorlo or Burrell in the Noongar language." (https://gnarlaboodjamap.dlgsc.wa.gov.au/#/welcome)
4. "In 1829, the area that became the City of Perth, or Boorloo, was in the boodja of Yellagonga, a Whadjuk Nyoongar leader, and his family. Yellagonga’s boodjar took in the land north of Derbarl Yerrigan, from the sea to Ellen Brook and north to Moore River." (see https://kuraree.heritageperth.com.au/kuraree/yellagonga-boodja/, when "City of Perth" is read to mean City of Perth the LGA rather than city of Perth the conurbation; note that the broader area on the map on page 10 of https://parks.dpaw.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/downloads/parks/Indigenous%20history%20of%20the%20Swan%20and%20Canning%20rivers.pdf exceeds the boundaries of City of Perth the LGA)

Betterkeks (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Betterkeks, I quote your words: "Today, Boorloo means Perth" and below "However, Boorloo is also sometimes (possibly erroneously) used to denote today’s Local Government Area (LGA) and the CBD". Looks like you haven't read the discussion above. Your theories are just original research. Wikipedia say: Wikipedia:No original research! Your sources are not introducing anything new to the discussion. Word of "Perth" has many meanings, term of "Perth" does not always apply to an entire metropolis. The source must clearly show that it is a metropolis. Private opinion like "I think the source writes about Perth as a metropolis" is out of the discussion. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: Please stay friendly (see WP:TALK#COMMUNICATE) and positive (see WP:TALK#POSITIVE). Mitch Ames asked for references and for the specific bits in them, and I took the time to provide them as per WP:TALK#SHARE so the WP:TALK#FACTS may be dealt with.

Subjecting sources to thoughtful editorial judgment is not original research (see WP:REPUTABLE). Neither is concluding any of the below, since at minimum each is unpublishably unoriginal (see WP:NOTSYNTH) and the last two additionally for WP:NPOV.

1. In 1829, Boorloo (or Boorlo) was a broader area within Yellagonga's (or Yellowgonga's) area at

the northern shore of the Swan River.

1. Today, Boorloo means Perth. ("Perth" and "Perth WA" are the conurbation, and not the LGA nor the suburb nor the CBD (of Perth); concluding that the intended audience would read it differently would be unreasonable.)
2. Boorloo is also sometimes used to denote today’s Local Government Area (LGA) and the CBD. (However, IMO, only one source passes WP:V outright, one fails it outright, undecided about the other two.

Betterkeks (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Betterkeks, again. You wrote: "Today, Boorloo means Perth. ("Perth" and "Perth WA" are the conurbation, and not the LGA nor the suburb nor the CBD (of Perth)". This is only your private opinion, speculation, interpretation and guesswork. I wrote about it above. You have not only given sources, but you also give your own attempt at interpretation to this sources. Some your comments (like the quote above) stinging the eyes with their original research. You are not to try to interpret what in the source means term of "Perth"! Wikipedia is no room for speculation, interpretation, or guesswork. Source must show exactly which type of Perth (metro, LGA, city) is being described to the "Boorloo" name. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 2:2:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: In that context it is absurd to understand Perth to mean anything BUT the conurbation. As absurd as it would be to suggest Perth in those sources means the Perth in Scotland or the railway station. Betterkeks (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Not, in that context Perth to mean for example city centre. Wikipedia is no room for speculation, interpretation, or guesswork. Some people here insist on worshiping Aboriginal name of places and cannot find eve:n few credible sources that describes this name for Perth metropolitan city? Are you kidding around here? Some users here do a kindergarten, not an encyclopedia. Stop making jokes about Wikipedia. If there are no credible sources that describe the "Boorloo" as Perth metropolitan area = no aboriginal name in article of Perth metropolitan area. Further discussion is unnecessary. I understand that few users here want to honor the former rulers of these lands and show respect for them but the Aboriginal name must be suported by sources which clearly say what area it is about without speculations, interpretations, or guessworks. You can't jump over this. It is not enough to stamp your foot like a six-year-old boy. Policy of Wikipedia is clear. Stop acting like children, look for sources that say exactly "Boorloo" for the Perth metropolitan area. If there are no such sources, don't waste time. Wikipedia will make no exception for breaking basic policy of Wikipedia for a few Australian users who want to honor the former rulers of these lands and show respect for them. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 00:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Subtropical-man, have you not heard of WP:UNCIVIL, your comments ('some users here do a kindergarten' and 'stamp your foot like a six-year old boy') and your attitude to other editors is condescending and belittling. I would ask that you refrain from such personal attacks and strikeout those comments. Just because others disagree with your point of view you do not need to be so aggressive and attack them - there is no room in Wikipedia to be rude and offensive to other editors. Betterkeks has simply tried to explain the difference between how the indigenous people view the land as opposed to a European perspective. Clearly you have a misunderstanding on that matter - noting that the first nation people were not rulers of these lands, they were and are custodians of the land. Dan arndt (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Contributors to this discussion would probably also be interested in Talk:Rottnest_Island#Wadjemup_or_t_Eylandt_'t_Rottenest, over a similar disagreement about a parenthetic inclusion of an alternative name in the lead sentence, and are invited to join that discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• So, from the beginning of the discussion, nothing has changed. Still the same problem - there are no credible sources directly stating that the name of "Boorloo" refers to the Perth metropolitan area. Wikipedia:Core content policies are not negotiable. I think this change is to be undone as soon as possible, I ask the user:Steelkamp to correct his mistake. If this edition is not reverted by April 15 (+0 UTC), I will insert the {OR} template or {Cleanup} or {Disputed} to intro of article, until that name from the intro is removed. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have to disagree with your assertion - there has been extensive discussions, including the provision of a number of credible sources relating to the name 'Boorloo'. Your comments in my opinion appear to be an attempt to intimidate or threaten other editors into accepting your point of view without letting this discussion run its proper course. Dan arndt (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Please stop personal attacks and slanders. Yes, there has been extensive discussions, including the provision of a number of credible sources relating to the name 'Boorloo' however, there is not a single source directly stating that the name of "Boorloo" refers to the Perth metropolitan area. The topic is still debatable and controversial, theoretically, name can be mentioned in the etymology or history section (theoretically, writing generally "Boorloo" relate to an undefined word "Perth"), but never debatable and controversial things shouldn't be in in intro of article! In addition, there are credible sources that the name refers to CBD. I would like to remind you that I opened this thread of discussion for this change, and I am discussing this change. and PS. I do not need your consent to insert the template to article. Wikipedia's rules make it clear that anyone has the right to insert a template and no one has the right to delete it without fixing the problem. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have not made any personal attacks or slandered you. I do however think that the tone of your comments and the statements that you make are not conducive to encourage other editors to participate in this discussion. I have also never stated or implied that you can't insert a template if you feel that it is applicable. I believe that there has been genuine progress made in to clarify the use of Boorloo to describe Perth. Dan arndt (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Dan arndt: could you provide a link to, and quote the relevant text from, a reference that says unambiguously that Boorloo covers (approximately) the metropolitan area, not just CBD or suburb. Note that , added here does not. Specifically it says "Boorloo is the Noongar word for the land that is now known as Perth" but does not say "Perth metro area". For context, the article is about a rally "at Perth’s Langley Park", where Langley Park is "an open space in the central business district of Perth" - so there is nothing in the reference that explicitly says that "Perth" in "Boorloo ... the land that is now known as Perth" is the metropolitan area (as opposed to the CBD, inside which the rally took place). Mitch Ames (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Mitch, there are plenty of sources which show there is a greater usage of Boorloo to describe Perth (rather than specifically the Perth CBD). A good example is the 2023 Womens World Cup, where FIFA uses the dual name Perth/Boorloo as the hosting city for a number of the international teams and group stage matches. Dan arndt (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Link, to save everyone having to search for it: https://www.fifa.com/tournaments/womens/womensworldcup/australia-new-zealand2023/news/training-sites-in-australia-confirmed-for-fifa-womens-world-cup-2023-tm Mitch Ames (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Serious? :D :D :D This source say: "Sydney/Gadigal – ES Marks Athletics Field, Leichhardt Oval, Valentine Sports Park, Western Sydney Wanderers Centre of Football. Melbourne/Naarm – JL Murphy Reserve, Lakeside Stadium, Reggio Calabria Club. Adelaide/Tarntanya – Marden Sports Complex, South Australia Football Centre. Brisbane/Meaanjin – Perry Park, Spencer Park. Perth/Boorloo – Dorrien Gardens, Western Australia State Football Centre " - :D :D :D. Can see that FIFA tried to salute the Aborigines people, but proved that FIFA has no any idea what is writing about. FIFA wrote such nonsense that it stings the eyes. FIFA creates a new reality, is the only source in the world who Brisbane called Meaanjin and Sydney as.... Gadigal? What? Yes - Gadigal?!?!?! The above names do not apply to the metropolitan areas of this cities, this is typical nonsense. Besides, FIFA page is not a reliable source for names of cities. Let's be serious. This is the website of the football federation. Maybe look for a source like MTV or Columbia Pictures or London Underground or Centreville Amusement Park and it will be a complete source of misinformation :D :D :D Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Once again Subtropical-man your attitude and comments are not conducive to a good and robust discussion on the matter. Your opinion that FIFA is not a reliable secondary sources is misguided. What I was demonstrating is that there is a growing recognition of the use of Boorloo to describe Perth at an international level. FIFA, clearly consulted Football Australia before formally publicly announcing the host cities for the 2023 Womens World Cup. As to your other preceding comments, there is certainly many precedents where the name used by first nations people are included in the lead of an article, such as Wellington and Auckland. Dan arndt (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Dan arndt, you wrote: "FIFA, clearly consulted Football Australia before formally publicly announcing the host cities for the 2023 Womens World Cup" - aside from pure guesswork and speculation, have you read the FIFA content? Some names (for example for Sydney) are absurdal. I don't mention the misspellings of the aboriginal name of Brisbane anymore. If FIFA wrote such nonsense, it should rather be assumed that clearly NOT consulted Football Australia before formally publicly announcing the host cities. How can this source be considered credible if it shows such errors? This is a rhetorical question. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 06:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone could post some more links to the "plenty of sources which show there is a greater usage of Boorloo to describe Perth (rather than specifically the Perth CBD)". Or better - to avoid accusations of WP:Original research - someone could post a link to a reference that actually states explicitly that "Boorloo" means the Perth metro area and not just the CBD or suburb. I've been searching, but have yet to find anything definitive. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Mitch Ames, the problem is that there are no sources "that actually states explicitly that "Boorloo" means the Perth metro area and not just the CBD or suburb". You were looking, I was looking, and probably others were also looking. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 06:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  This article showing the use of traditional Aboriginal names to refer to cities during a news broadcast may be of interest to this discussion: https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/channel-10-commended-for-naidoc-weather-segment-using-traditional-names-for-australian-cities/news-story/aab88b49c36d6d140210c8d2800c2a1b The Logical Positivist (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  The source brings nothing new to the discussion. The use of names in source, but it is not specified that this applies to metropolitan areas. Especially in terms of meteorology, where metropolises have microclimates - so, temperatures cannot apply to the entire metropolis. Usually it's data from one weather station in the centre. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 06:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Did Channel 10 do something similar for the local weather forecast? For example, in Perth, ABC TV's weather segment in the 7pm news includes a map and forecast for several suburbs (named on the map) within the metro area. It's not exactly the list shown (on the right) in http://www.bom.gov.au/wa/forecasts/perth.shtml but similar. Importantly it includes several suburbs, so it would be interesting to see if the map showed just Boorloo (whole metro area), or whether it showed Boorloo (CBD), Walyalup (Fremantle), etc. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I haven't seen anything indicating whether they did something like that for the local broadcast. The Logical Positivist (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• What it does indicate that at a national level (the ten weather broadcast is based in the eastern states) is the recognition that Boorloo is the commonly used indigenous name for Perth (and not just the Perth CBD). Which is the same as FIFA's recognition of the name. Dan arndt 01:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Speculations, guessworks, own opinions, again. Please read, for example: This reliable source show "Perth" LGA as "Perth area" and show other suburbs and LGAs like Fremantle, Rockingham etc - see menu on right of page. So, Perth centre is often shown as Perth area, though it's not metropolitan area. As for the FIFA case: FIFA also recognition of the name of "Gadigal" for Sydney, although everyone knows this is nonsense and there was a mistake, so. I am skipping the error a misspelling in Brisbane aboriginal name here. In this situation, if there are such bugs, FIFA page does not comply with the WP:VER requirements and can be contested by any user of the Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, ask any administrator. The source in which the errors are detected is not a reliable source of information, especially on debatable issues where the most reliable sources are needed. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 08:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• The inclusion of the the City of Perth reference, clearly demonstrates that a reputable authority has shown that the term Boorloo covers an area greater than the Perth CBD. The other references demonstrate that the term, Boorloo, is increasingly being used to describe the Perth conurbation by mainstream media and large organisations. Dan arndt (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• You wrote: "The inclusion of the the City of Perth reference, clearly demonstrates that a reputable authority has shown that the term Boorloo covers an area greater than the Perth CBD" - yes, more than CBD: area of City of Perth, there is no reference whatsoever to the metropolitan area. You wrote: "The other references demonstrate that the term, Boorloo, is increasingly being used to describe the Perth conurbation" - no, there is nothing in the sources about the conurbation. It's just your original research. Sources must be clear about conurbation, Wikipedia not based on your speculations. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 04:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  Its not based on my speculation but the common fact that the generic area of Perth is being increasingly known as Boorloo. Dan arndt (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• generic area of Perth? What it is? Greater Perth per Australian Bureau of Statistics, or metropolitan area? or urban area? or Perth metropolitan region/Metropolitan Region Scheme? or more than CBD or more than City of Perth? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 09:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@IronBattalion: This edit has a couple or problems:

• The first two paragraphs now have duplication:

The name "Perth" was selected in recognition of Perth, Scotland as the birthplace of the then Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, and Member for Perthshire in the British House of Commons, Sir George Murray. The only contemporary information on the source of the name comes from Charles Fremantle's diary entry for 12 August 1829, which records that they "named the town Perth according to the wishes of Sir George Murray". It is clear ...

The only contemporary information on the source of the name comes from Charles Fremantle's diary entry for 12 August, which records that they "named the town Perth according to the wishes of Sir George Murray". Murray was born in Perth, Scotland, and was in 1829 Secretary of State for the Colonies and Member for Perthshire in the British House of Commons. The town was named after the Scottish Perth, in Murray's honour.

• There are several "Cite errors" in reference list. (A bot fixed one of them.)

Could you fix these please. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand, I knew the problems when I moved the paragraph and that's why I said it was an initial edit. Moreover, I don't have the time I did last year due to life and I have lost some of my editing drive. I will get around to it, but it may not be in the timeframe you want... possibly I'll so something on the weekend. Sorry and have a good day. IronBattalion (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the problematic edit for now, until someone has a chance to do it properly. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

re:

I still assert that the Etymology section is inappropriate:

• The two paragraphs therein more appropriately belong in the Prehistory and Swan River Colony section (where they have long been) where they better fit into the narrative flow. Moving two completely unrelated words into a single Etymology section does not improve the article.
• If it existed at all (and I don't think it should), the Etymology section ought not be first section - it's hardly the most important thing that readers are going to be looking for. Yet putting the etymology anywhere later disrupts the chronology of the article. The mention of those names belongs in the historical sections where they were before.
• In any case, I still think it unwise to move or change the paragraph about Boorloo while there is an active discussion about the use of that word.

In accordance with WP:BRD and WP:BRDDISCUSS, I request that IronBattalion restore that text to the original state while the change is discussed. Other editors are, of course, invited to comment on the matter. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Mitch Ames, the Etymology section is inappropriate and introduces more problems than it was before. User:IronBattalion, please revert your changes and first discuss them before implementing them to article. BTW, I omit the issue of elevating the Boorloo above the norm, because if the Boorloo applies to CBD, the informations about the Boorloo should be transferred from Perth metropolitan city to the Perth CBD. In this situation, you have given another argument to remove the name of Boorloo from the main article entirely. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I AGREE with Mitch Ames on his last two points, and DISAGREE with Mitch Ames on his first point. The etymology is interesting and significant enough to be covered in it’s own section. Betterkeks (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Mitch Ames: Having looked at the two pages (London and Brisbane) pointed out by IronBattalion, and seeing the dispute closed, I now disagree with all three points. The Etymology section ought to be restored in the main article at the location proposed by IronBattalion, where it may be further improved, such as by using the sources that have been provided. Betterkeks (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

By the way, and this is a temporary edit, give me a second, I'm currently developing a response to this section and the reply in the last section that is to my mind coherent and lengthy. Additionally I need to go to bed soon... and furthermore I have got commitments that means I can only respond intermittently throughout the week. Thanks for your patience and I'm not trying to ghost you (on purpose anyway). IronBattalion (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Given the agreement of Subtropical-man and (on my 3rd bullet point) Betterkeks, and the absence of any further explanation from IronBattalion, I have moved/changed the Etymology text back to just before the creation of the Etymology section.

Again, I suggest that we wait until the #Aboriginal name discussion is resolved, before we create a separate Etymology section. (Although of course we might still discuss it here.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

OI! Not cool mate. And I’m sorry for the delay but I’ve been caught up in commitments and my own sluggishness. Now to the content:

1. 1. I refer to London and any page on a country which all exhibit the etymology of a name as the first section of a page (even if the title doesn’t use the exact phrasing as mine).
2. 2. It is an important trivial piece of information that when buried within the history section is easy to miss, especially in a long document of a history, which may happen if we expand the page.
3. 3. And finally, (I’m going to ignore your 3rd point because I’ve already discussed it in the changelog) it is a short section so people can very easily skip over it.

Additionally, I spent half an hour on a quick edit that is by no means foolproof. I was going to incorporate all mentions of Perth, however one part required a bit more finesse and thus I reserved it for later. And while this could have been rectified, it required more time than I was willing to allocate. And if you want quote policies. Here’s mine: I quote your own WP:BRD ‘...[this policy] is an optional method of seeking consensus. This process in not mandated by Wikipedia’s policy...’. Furthermore, WP:ROWN states that it is Wikipedia’s policy is not automatically reverting to the status quo but keeping the changes made, as paraphrased from WP:ROWN. Personally, I’m of the opinion that you don’t need to especially follow Wikipedia’s policy as long as you follow good common sense (I understand why they are in place, and they are good at communicating what is expected on this site). I believe they should be used as a last resort, not the first or second thing that comes to mind. Moreover, you get people who like to use the ‘Technicismo Maximus’ and that leads to going nowhere (and probably starting something that WP:EW hopes to avoid). And well if at first every change must be established by consensus, then WP:BOLD is pretty much useless. And Subtropical, I'm currently working on a response, but again delayed. IronBattalion (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I maintain the opinion of my original post. To avoid accusations of edit-warring I won't revert it again myself, but ask that some other editor restore the page to the status quo (approximately ), in accordance with WP:STATUSQUO - "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo ante bellum". Mitch Ames (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

G'day again Mitch, I've read the policy you provided and it is quite ambiguous in my opinion. My interpretation is that when a dispute starts (ie when you raised your objections) the version that is objected to is the status quo, not the version before (except in the most egregious of cases). Additionally it is the policy to reword a Good Faith edit instead of reverting, which you did not do. Moreover, it states that it prefers the version with the disputed content. I feel like a broken record, but to reiterate, can we please just discuss what the legitimacy of the change rather then have the statement of policy be the end of discussion, and for my full thoughts I refer back to my opinions in the previous post. I am not particularly attached to this page and I am willing to alter any change I have if there is a discussion , but if quoting policy is the only thing we can do, this is going to go nowhere. Sorry if I can't continue this conversation over the next week, I've got commitments that I've delayed heavily. Have a good day and Cheers. IronBattalion (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The "status quo" is the state of affairs before any relevant change - in this case, before the creation of the Etymology section. In the language of Status quo ante bellum, the war starts whey someone "attacks", not when the defender "fights back". (This is an analogy, not a personal slur.) There is currently no consensus to create that section (especially when the scope of the Noongar name is in dispute in #Aboriginal name) - other editors have expressed disagreement. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" - the bold edit in this case being the creation of the Etymology section. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced, but given Betterkeks' change of opinion I shan't continue to argue the point. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Mitch Ames: Thank you for showing good Wikiquette.
• @IronBattalion: Please go ahead and develop the Etymology section.

Betterkeks (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I am unclear why there is a template in the Etymology section that says that its "factual accuracy is disputed." While there may be disagreement in the discussion above about whether Boorloo definitively means the whole Perth metro area, as far as I can see the section itself sidesteps that disagreement and none of the statements in it are disputed. The Logical Positivist (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The last sentence is certainly vague . Perhaps it's intentional, but if we intend to mean that the scope of "Perth" (as meant by "Boorloo") is context-dependent, then we should say so explicitly. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I am avoiding edit warring, but I note that the section has been changed again to limit Boorloo to just Point Fraser, when the DLGC source that was referenced in that section, and the many sources and maps referred to in the previous discussion show Boorloo as the name for at least the Perth CBD area. The Logical Positivist (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: I have removed the {{Dubious}} tag on the sentence about the City of Perth. That sentence as currently worded, including the quote, is factually accurate and easily verified from the citations provided. Given its current position in the paragraph - before any mention of conurbation or metro area any other area larger than the CoP LGA - it is not implying anything about any area larger than the LGA.

Can we please discuss this on the talk page, rather than continue this edit-warring and "discussion by edit summary". Mitch Ames (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Mitch Ames, you wrote: "that sentence as currently worded, including the quote, is factually accurate and easily verified from the citations provided" (...) " it is not implying anything about any area larger than the LGA" - that's not the point. My rationale was saved in the template. These text are about "City of Perth". The City Council did so, it only applies to "City of Perth" area. The question is: why should we write in article of metropolitan area about something that only concerns "City of Perth", and not the metropolitan area? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 06:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Currently the second paragraph of Etymology has, in this order:

Boorloo = CBD^[1][2]

Boorloo = originally Point Fraser^[3][4]

Boorloo = City of Perth (LGA)^[5][6]

Boorloo = increasingly greater Perth area^{[7][8][9][10][11]}

I suggest that what we need to is rearrange the sentences, with an explicit statement that the scope of Boorloo has changed, and is context-dependent.

Boorloo = originally Point Fraser^[3][4]

The meaning of Boorloo has changed over time, to become synonymous with "Perth", both in terms of encompassing a larger geographic area and being context-dependent in its interpretation. As "Perth" can mean Perth (suburb), Perth CBD, City of Perth LGA, or Perth metropolitan region, depending on context, so too can "Boorloo".^{[citation needed][improper synthesis?]} For example (and not necessarily implying chronological order):

• Explicit example(s) [in Wikipedia article text] of meaning CBD^[1][2]
• Existing explicit example of City of Perth^[5][6]
• Explicit example(s) of meaning greater Perth area^{[7][8][9][10][11]}

Note I'm not asserting that all of these references are fit for purpose here - just illustrating how I think the paragraph should look, assuming that we have or can find valid references. The point of this post is to address Subtropical-man's question "why ... write ... of metropolitan area about something that only concerns 'City of Perth'". The answer being that the scope of Boorloo is variable, and we should say so.

Mitch Ames (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that I am a little concerned about WP:SYN here - we can find examples where we can reasonably accept that "Boorloo" means Perth metro area, but I've yet to find something at actually says the meaning of "Boorloo" is context-depend just like "Perth" is. Note also that many of those references are not Noongar sources. I wonder if the word "Boorloo" means something different depending on whether the speaker is Noongar and/or speaking that language, vs a non-Aboriginal person trying to acknowledge Noongar traditional ownership without being too concerned with accuracy of terminology. Ie the use is rhetoric or making a statement about recognising traditional ownership, rather than accurately conveying (the size of) the location of some specific place. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Mitch Ames I think that you have outlined a fairly succinct and orderly approach to deal with this issue. I also agree with your thoughts about the applying European concepts to traditional indigenous concepts. Noting that the first nations do not ascribe to the European idea that land is 'owned' by any individuals or group individuals - they consider that they are custodians of the land not that they 'own' it. Dan arndt (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed - Mitch Ames, the approach you have set out looks like an appropriate way to cover this. The Logical Positivist (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  first nations ... consider that they are custodians of the land not that they 'own' it — Agreed. But, if (for example) the City of Perth "acknowledge[s] Whadjuk Nyoongars as the Traditional Owners of this land"^[5] then I think it's fair for Wikipedia to also use the term "traditional owner", as many other sources do, (and as we currently do). I used the term in my previous post as it is commonly used - to denote (acknowledgement of) long-standing occupation and cultural connection, not British/European-style legal ownership. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• As I mentioned before, I am not against for the article who describes the term of "Boorloo" for both CBD, City of Perth and also other areas... but the problem is with the use of sources which use the term "Perth" as an unidentified area. A neutral approach should be used, without suggesting it might be a metropolitan area or Greater Perth or OR's "increasingly greater Perth area" (as above). Wikipedia is not a place for speculations, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 08:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think what you're asking doesn't really make sense given the context. All over the world and in Australia, conurbations are referred to by the name of the metropolitan area. Sydney refers to the Sydney conurbation, Melbourne refers to the Melbourne conurbation, Los Angeles refers to the Los Angeles conurbation. This is pretty standard, and if 'Boorloo' referred to the CBD it would be referenced as the CBD in the articles written by major institutions (WA Museum) and not as Perth. I don't see what is wrong with Mitch's suggested paragraph which states the historical meaning and current usage of the name. Poketama (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Mitch Ames, you did not understand me, totally. I only wrote about this one sentence: "In a 2021 agreement with Whadjuk elders, the City of Perth recognised the Whadjuk Noongar people as the traditional owners of the land on which the "City of Perth (Boorloo) is situated"". To this sencence, I added template {Dubious}. I know "that the scope of Boorloo is variable", however, this sentence is superfluous for this article (of metropolitan area). This sencence is good for article of City of Perth because it only applies to the City of Perth, this sentence is not relevant to the metropolitan area. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 07:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking you are correct in that the sentence does not explicitly state, for example, that "City of Perth use the word 'Boorloo' to mean 'City of Perth'.", and the main clause "City of Perth recognised traditional owners" is irrelevant to the use of the word "Boorloo". ({{Relevance inline}} would probably have been a more appropriate template than {{Dubious}} - but this is not an invitation to add that template!) However, per , I think the paragraph is currently badly worded. My proposed new "wording"/structure includes a place for examples, and the City of Perth is such an example. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  It is not only a question of whether a word is used or not (and to what extent and by who), but rather whether it is (1) correct, (2) warrants being prominently displayed, and (3) complies with Wikepedia rules. For item (1), it seems clear enough that Perth is not equivalent to an area of former swamps known as Boorloo. For item (2) is it worth noting that, the same way there are plenty of special interest websites referring to Boorloo, plenty of references can also be found claiming that the world is flat. Such misinformation should, however, not be prominently displayed on Wikipedia as an alternative to the view that the earth is spherical.

  As the presentation of Boorloo as an alternative name in the first sentence of the lead also runs counter to a number of Wikipedia rules, it should be removed and presented in a way that is less at odds with Wikipedia's mission to provide reasonably reliable/unbiased information. Simulaun (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)