Talk:Marble Hill, South Australia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Playford present on Jan 2?

I just removed the reference to Playford sheltering with the governor and family. This cite mentions that the Premier arrived and warned the governor to phone the police, but it is ambiguous as to whether he actually sheltered with the governor while the bushfire destroyed the house. One would think this would be quite a well-covered event, if true, but I can't find any better cite than this ambiguous one. Does anyone have better information than me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeti Hunter (talk • contribs) 02:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing by the Democrats

Edits like these [1] are not constructive. Please read WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Move the slow edit war to here please

How about a discussion below Mifren and Yeti Hunter ? - Peripitus (Talk) 20:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Peripitus, I am grateful as per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution "In the meantime the disputed article will evolve, other editors may become interested and they will have different perspectives if the issue comes up again." It seems clear to me that editing what has been contributed up to wiki standards and dialogue rather than reducing down to consistent cryptic if not punitive undos makes it easier for we in wiki community and community at large to actually better comprehend in real time exactly what has, is and is likely to be under a Marble Hill Heads of Agreement sale as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burra_Charter thus http://www.icomos.org/australia/burra.html. "The Charter recognises the need to involve people in the decision-making process, particularly those that have strong associations with a place." Article 1.4 states "Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance." Which was diminished from the South Australia Letters Patent 1836 for the Kaurna-Peramangk people as Traditional Owners with the 2004 Marble Hill Native Title Amendment and further eroded with the "sale or lease" EOI 2007 then Heads of Agreement sale 2008 and Marble Hill Protection Bill negatived in our SA Parliament last Thursday morning.

Articles 2.3 state "Conservation is an integral part of good management of places of cultural significance." and 2.4 "Places of cultural significance should be safeguarded and not put at risk or left in a vulnerable state." state where can we demonstrate that DEH has met those criteria? Again Item 4.3 states, "Conservation should make use of all the knowledge, skills and disciplines which can contribute to the study and care of the place." In what way ignoring the above stakeholders has DEH demonstrated best practice in this regard?

The Burra Charter Article 6.1 explicitly states, "The cultural significance of a place and other issues affecting its future are best understood by a sequence of collecting and analysing information before making decisions. Understanding cultural significance comes first, then development of policy and finally management of the place in accordance with the policy."

Article 6.1 states that "The policy for managing a place must be based on an understanding of its cultural significance." Where then is that Marble Hill Policy? Has Ernie as FOMH IPP or you as Pres and IPVP seen such a DEH document apart from the Danvers Report? Does the Danvers Report recommend amending Native Title and sale of Marble Hill as a SA State Heritage site? Mifren (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So if I follow you correctly, you wish to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to express your disapproval of the the way the Government has gone about the sale process? Sorry but that's not what Wikipedia is all about. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Both editors have questions to answer and both need to recognise they may be wrong - these are points to think on perhaps rather than respond to at length.
  • Mifren - Wikipedia is not a place for soapboxing, it is a place to write in a neutral and balanced way. Any editor needs to think carefully when editing about a subject they have strong feelings on. I do note that the bill attracted no news interest at all but died stillborn in the house of reps. Why is it significant enough to report on a failed private members bill ?
  • Yeti Hunter - The current text is apparently factual and at least referenced with external links - doesn't leaving it in place add to reader's understanding of Marble Hill's place in South Australian politics ?
  • Both - Next time before you play edit tennis consider WP:1RR - Peripitus (Talk) 20:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually soapboxing isn't in fact my interest at all. My interest is democracy, heritage, Governance, due process and best practice, the fact that a premier South Australian Public Estate property is being sold into the private market without real community consultation and that is of at least State if not National Australian and British Commonwealth ie international interest. Especially when Hon Michelle Lensink MLC FOI revealed that in 2004 DEH amended Marble Hill Native Title which goes against the South Australia Letters Patent 1836. "Provided Always that nothing in those our Letters Patent contained shall affect or be construed to affect the rights of any Aboriginal Natives of the said Province to the actual occupation or enjoyment in their own Persons or in the Persons of their Descendants of any Lands therein now actually occupied or enjoyed by such Natives"

If my POV is not neutral then I thought that it would be easy for Yeti Hunter or any other wikiEditor to edit accordingly, not simply delete as I have simply implied in my notes todate. Again I have yet to find previous cryptic one word or phrase edit lines after deleting by undoing as helpful. I guess it depends on what one may define as "news" with

The fact that there was no "news" only demonstrates the way in which media control what is going on as per: "1 Community Interests

The South Australian Heritage Act 1978 (SA) was criticised by the Hon M K Mayes in the Parliamentary debates concerning South Australia’s current heritage legislation. Mayes stated that

the existing heritage measures do not adequately reflect community interest in conserving local heritage ... the processes of heritage administration are too centralised and closed … In response to these criticisms, the resulting legislative package offers something for everyone. The community at large is given a greater say in conserving the historic environment.[37]

The suggestion here is that the new Act was to open up the regime of heritage protection to the masses; to increase public participation and hence factual inclusion." http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLJ/2005/9.html Mifren (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That was a pretty spectacular soapboxing, Matt. I have a hard time following your argument, if there is one, but the sources you've posted don't demonstrate a thing. They are just parliamentary transcripts, or documents which only mention Marble Hill in passing. The complete lack of news regarding the bill is not a result of some vast conspiracy of censorship, it's just that nobody's interested. I will admit that that by itself doesn't mean it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia, but I don't know where the MHP bill would fit. As far as I can see, the only reason to include it would be as an anti-sale soapbox, but Hamilton Smith claims that that is not the purpose of the bill. Your previous post demonstrates to me that you are indeed here to soapbox, that is, to use Wikipedia as the medium to voice your personal view on this issue, which is a violation of 3 core wikipolicies, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. I'll have a crack at rewriting the entire reconstruction section and see if I can mention the bill somewhere, because I actually find it quite interesting, but the form that Mifren is proposing is entirely inappropriate.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to see the absolute term "nobody" reference used to justify what seems to me to be a strawman arguement. Similarly, limit your use of absolute terms, such as "everybody," "always," "never." Unless you relay an indisputable fact ("Everybody needs water"), these words can make your writing imprecise or overly subjective. One may write, idiomatically, "I'll do anything for you," but one probably should write, "I'll do almost anything for you." http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Colloquial-(Informal)-Writing Mifren (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-arbitrary break

Mifren, I think I see the problem. You clearly feel strongly about both the place, and some issues surrounding it. What you've constructed above is tending towards a synthetic viewpoint, and you are clearly not editing with a neutral point of view in mind on this subject. On the other hand it is appropriate for there to be a brief mention of the existence, and defeat, of the private members bill simply for completeness. Peripitus (Talk) 20:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How about this for a compromise solution: Since "reconstruction" has not actually taken place yet, nor even has the actual sale, we nix the "reconstruction" section entirely, replacing it with another two dot-points in the "After the fire" section, perhaps thus:
How's that for fair and balanced? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ironically if either of you as serious wiki Editors looked at the Bill and informed yourselves on our SA Parliamentary due process you will clearly see that the Liberal Party never sought to block the sale so again I fail to see how that is "fair" or "balanced".Mifren (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
OK then, if you're so down with our "SA Parliament Hon Michelle Lensink MLC due process" why don't you write a suggestion rather than just getting on your high horse every time we try to improve the article? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that I have in fact commented specifically about being down with our SA Parliamentarian Hon Michelle Lensink MLC at all. What evidence do you have to support your claim? I have written the suggestion that when you simply undo virtually everything I had contributed to the chronicle of Marble Hill with cryptic words or phrases instead of editing as I and others have suggested. I more recently have learned that it seems in fact that SA DEH have a commitment to the Australian National Heritage Standards Burra Charter from the International Heritage Standards Venice Charter 1964 yet have not it seems actually implemented them which is now before the SA Auditor General even though that itself may not yet be in the media.Mifren (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Matt, you're right - you have not specifically used the exact quote that you are "down with" all of that, but you certainly do seem to have pretty decent inside information. Well, if and when that gets reported in a reliable source then we can include it. But for now, do you have any suggestions? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Native Title

I'm not aware of any native title claims relating to Marble Hill. Mifren, do you have a reliable source for this diff?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Five days later, no sources have been provided for the 2000 claim (I have searched news and Hansard and come up empty), and a supposed 2009 claim is referenced to a user-generated content news site called Newsmaker (this diff). I have removed the native title section as unsourced per WP:SPS.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these notes YH, I've only just sighted them. I'm somewhat bemused by your self justifying lack of Kaurna Native Title Claim awareness as an Adelaide based South Australian. I equally imagine you have yet to read, learn and know the Founding Documents of King William IV South Australia Letters Patent and Governor Hindmarsh as Commander-in-Chief's Proclamation 1836. I just did a quick google search for Kaurna Native Title Claim which resulted in http://oldsite.nntt.gov.au/registration/494.html
Application name Decision
Kaurna Peoples Native Title Claim Accepted
Tribunal file no. Federal Court file no. State Application date Decision date
SC00/1 S6001/00 SA 25/10/2000 22/08/2001
Also http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1458736?lookfor=&offset=&max=23
Bib ID 1458736
Format Map
Author South Australia. Dept. for Environment and Heritage. Environmental and Geographic Information
Scale Scale ca. 1:250 000 (E 138⁰00'--E 139⁰00'/S 33⁰30'--S 35⁰30')
Description [Adelaide] : Environmental and Geographic Information, Dept. for Environment and Heritage, [2001]
1 map : col. ; 97 x 68 cm.
Notes
Map of Adelaide region on cadastral base showing native title claim boundary and existing land tenure types. Also shows hundred, local government and conservation park boundaries.
"Native title claim boundary sourced from NNTT and current as at 10 August 2001".
"Mapped: 15th August 2001".
"Does not show historical tenures which may have extinguished native title rights and interests in areas of the claim".
There are other documents online by Marion and Unley Councils so I fail at this stage to easily see your point nor arguement being just that, self serving arguement. As we write Friends of Marble Hill Acting President Ruth Russell is having to get back to Claimants on Marble Hill Native Title as does DEH-DEC Senior Planning Officer Richard Fox.
Your second point lacks validity on the basis that the author is Sam Rossi and Publisher Newsmaker edited by Leila Henderson which I am aware has now not only been tabled at the April Kaurna Native Title Management Committee but also been picked up by a Coober Pedy Times Reporter and a Byron Bay Native Title and Sovereignty Claimant. I hope this then begins to help clarify reality other than simplistic opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mifren (talk • contribs) 20:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
We are not going to play edit tennis over this again, you are the one who has to demonstrate that this is notable and worthy of inclusion, so please leave the material out until we've had it out on the talk page. Sigh.
Re: the 2000 claim, according to the source you posted, the claim included not only Marble Hill, but the whole of Fleurieu Peninsula from Cape Jervis to Port Broughton! So while such a statement may be factually correct, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say it is specifically relevant to Marble Hill. You might as well add such a statement to Norton Summit, Adelaide Hills, and every other place on the peninsula. But hey, someone else may have a different opinion (Peripitus, how do you see this one?), so I'm open to discussion.
Re: the 2009 claim however, this "news" has not been reported by any reliable secondary sources. Sam Rossi is not an independent third party, he is the author of the speech! Photos are posted on your own facebook, for heaven's sake! You can hardly claim to be an independent third party source on this one I'm afraid. So far as I know, no reliable sources have printed this story and you have not provided any evidence other than uncited claims that they have. That's why this stays out for now.
Also, please indent your posts using semicolons to make it easier to follow the flow of a discussion. Thanks! --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I imagine at this time YH that you too probably have not yet seen the almost 2" thick FOI DEH-DEC Marble Hill Documentation SA Liberal Opposition Leader in the Upper House Hon Michelle Lensink MLC gained which includes significant statements from the former DEH-DEC Minister Hon Gail Gago MLC on Kaurna Native Title and Senior Planning Officer Richard Fox having Marble Hill Crown Land Native Title boundaries ammended. My current understanding for example from FOMH Vice President Ruth Russell is that the Marble Hill carpark of all things may actually have Native Title considerations. I'm unsure why it was necessary for you YH to introduce "every other place on the peninsula" as a logic red herring when clearly this article is devoted to Marble Hill. It is almost as though you actually have some sort of Agenda against reality beyond just mainstream Murdoch Media? Many know I hope how much a paragon of virtue, objective truth, justice etc the commercial free media are from ABCTV's Media Watch. Newsmaker's Leila Henderson is an independent Editor-Publisher. My understanding is that the photo shows Kaurna Native Title Management Committee Vice Chair and Named Claimant Ngankiburka Georgina Williams is who handed the Declaration of Sovereignty and "I Have Come" speech including Marble Hill bill of 130 back rent to our SA Governor flanked by Kaurna Native Title Management Committee (F) Co-Chair Kudnarto Joan Lamont Williams and Kaurna Native Title Management Committee Proxy Carol Agius dressed in their possum-skin cloaks. I do not claim ancestry nor identify as Kaurna nor was I aware of any the specifics until from Oct 2007 so I'm not yet with you YH on your claim around independent third party sourcing. If you are seriously serious about your claims or views then you could seriously consider showing some respect and seek to communicate directly yourself with the Kaurna concerned via the Native Title Management Committee through the Warriparinga Living Kaurna Culture Centre.Mifren (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
1 - No, I haven't seen a 2" thick FOI. Neither can anyone on Wikipedia. Perhaps you'd like to show me, but even then that would be original research. 2 - A chat with the FOMH president is also original research. 3 - The fact that you are not aboriginal does not make you a reliable source. 4 - Communicating directly with the Kaurna would be original research.
I guess a lack of edit warring was too much to ask.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
1 - I find it interesting whenever debating that a person who really is unsure of themselves or seeks justify their fixed position resorts to negative absolute conclusive terms or Ignoratio elenchi logic like, "Neither can anyone on Wikipedia." How can anyone possibly absolutely represent everyone on Wikipedia by pretentiously speaking for, about and without them? In actual fact anyone on Wikipedia can actually independently simply go to http://www.sa.gov.au and follow the links to apply for FOI SA Government Documents themselves or even write directly to Hon Michelle Lensink MLC as a Public Parliamentarian to seek their own independent copy whether DEH-DEC Marble Hill FOI documentation or any other Public Documents. Another logic red herring to distract? Equally YH am happy to show you (and others) the FOI DEH-DEC Marble Hill documentation I've been given as I was at the Warriparinga Living Kaurna Culture Centre Meeting recently. The more awareness raised and associated benefits promoted for more informed over ill-informed or poor decision making the better. Again I refer you and others to the King William IV South Australia Letters Patent and Governor Hindmarsh Proclamation 1836 Founding Documents details specific ethical, moral and potentially legal responsibilities and vicarious or proportional duty of care in these first principle social justice matters. As far as original research is concerned I personally perceive that perhaps DEH-DEC Senior Planning Officer Richard Fox's FOI Documentation may potentially be argued as such but when I'm seeing it ~5th hand, I'm not really convinced by your argument/s yet to date.Mifren (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Mifren, Yeti dropped me a note and it is clear that your edits to the article are....well....introducing unreliable information is the nicest light I can shine. The Kaurna native claim was an ambit claim that did not mention directly the area under discussion in this article and including it here is rather silly. The rest is sourced to your facebook site and to a press release - neither of which on any examination can be regarded as reliable sources. You are pushing your cause (which I am sympathetic to) and seem to have lost sight of the inappropriateness of doing that here. News, books and other reliable sources are all good....facebook, myspace, press releases and personal opinions are almost without exception not. Peripitus (Talk) 12:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Again I refute, Peripitus your comment that the information is unreliable when there are several good living people who are material 1st witnesses above and beyond your claim and I fail as specifically stated to see how Kaurna Sovereignty and Native Title Claim is any more ambit than the Founding Documents of King William IV South Australia Letters Patent and Governor Hindmarsh Proclamation 1836. It seems again another born and bred South Australian who does not yet know their ongoing at least ethical and moral obligations and responsibilities to these conditional documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mifren (talk • contribs) 02:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
"1st witness" = primary source, ie not admissable. I'm sure you are editing in good faith, but your continued assumption that others are not is astounding.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I've requested a 3rd opinion, though perhaps RfC may be more appropriate since we already have 3 opinions here. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis?

Hi everyone, I've arrived here as a result of your request at WP:3O. I've looked through the talk page and some of the recent diffs (lots of edit warring going on, sorry to see), but I confess I'm still a bit confused as to what the fact is that's under dispute. Could someone run it down for me briefly? Also I ask your forbearance since I'm not Australian and so am unfamiliar with some of your nomenclature. — e. ripley\talk 04:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to give you a neutral rundown. Some material was added by User:Mifren regarding a Native Title claim from 2000 on the area in question. It was unsourced, so I asked if Mifren had a source on the talk page. A few days later a 2009 claim was added, sourced to Mifren's facebook page. I removed both claims as unsourced and in accordance with WP:BURDEN ([2]). The new claim appeared again sourced to a press release by Newsmaker, which appears to be a site which issues press releases for a fee. I removed it as self-published, and it reappeared a few days later. Over a couple of days the material was reverted and restored twice more. At this point I decided to break the edit war and asked another editor (User:Peripitus) to participate, who agreed that it was unreliable, and reverted. The material was again restored. That's where we stand.
It should also be noted that Mifren is a co-author of the 2009 claim (here[3] and here[4])

Right of Reply: again this is a red herring and worse still inaccurate! 1/I have not claimed to be co-author and there is no real evidence provided nor proved 2/2009 is not a claim it is a bill 3/shows yes I am listed as an Encompass Technology Director but it does not note I am a co-author 4/ persistantly using erroneous premises to justify strawman arguments for me feels like harrassment Mifren (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Some other terms that may have been used... FOI = Freedom of Information request (govt must tell you what they're doing), FOMH = Friends of Marble Hill, a volunteer group who formerly ran open days at the site, DEH = Department of Environment and Heritage, the govt. department responsible for the site, Kaurna = the aboriginal group in whose name the Native Title Claim has been made.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so basically the claim being asserted is that a native tribe has made a legal claim against the land or building in question, yes? I'll take another look at the diffs, links and etc. now that it's a bit clearer. Thank you for the explainer. Quick question: Does this tribe have a website? They should be considered a reliable source for their own claims. We aren't here to prove the truth or falsity of that claim, only that they've made it. I am not yet convinced that this Newsmakers service (which appears to just be a press release distribution service) should in this case considered unreliable, since the burden for sourcing is lower when it comes to a group making a claim about itself (see self-published sources as a source on themselves). In this case, the tribe saying it believes something should be enough for us to cite it in the article saying they do indeed believe something without passing judgment on the truth of the claim; Newsmakers is just a forum through which the tribe distributed the information, like PR Newswire, and I see no reason to think their press release isn't coming from the tribe. Again, we aren't here to determine whether or not their claim is true, only that they've made one. Of course whether or not that claim really merits inclusion is a separate discussion. — e. ripley\talk 12:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Mifren would be able to answer this one better than I can, but I'm not sure weather they have a central leadership such as, say, Native American tribes do. I don't know of any "official" website. The claim is at present only available on Newsmaker, and a couple of blogs which have picked it up and quoted it.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, it seems that the Newsmakers source would be adequate to point to as a source for their own opinion. The blogs you mention seem to just be reposting the release, so they can be discarded as sources. A press release service, which is what Newsmakers seems to be, would be fine to cite as a source for a group's opinions about something, since presumably that same group is the one that's issued the press release. Newsmakers is just a distribution service. From WP:V:Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. I don't see any reason why we should doubt that they really demonstrated at this place and made a claim, since they're the ones who put out the release. That doesn't touch on the truth or validity of the claim, a question whose answer is beyond our mission as humble Wikipedia editors.
Now, whether or not they're the sort of outfit whose opinion is weighty enough to be included in this article at all is a separate issue (see undue weight). If this was a gathering of a few guys making wild claims then I'd be less inclined to support its inclusion at all; if they're a legitimate tribe with what could be a legitimate claim then that elevates the question a bit. If a few buddies and I went down there saying we're a native tribe with a claim on the place, then blasted a press release about it, I wouldn't expect to be included in a Wikipedia article. Remember that encyclopedia articles are a summation of the most pertinent or important information about a subject, not a dumping ground for every scrap of information under the sun. Now what we must do is judge whether or not their action deserves a spot here. That no other news organization found the action fit to publish says something to me, although I reserve judgment for the moment. — e. ripley\talk 13:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The Kaurna are certainly a legitimate tribe and well known around Adelaide. But although this news release is a purported Kaurna speech, the release was issued by a group called Encompass Technologies, which seems to be based in Kangaroo Island and run by two non-Kaurna. It seems unlikely that the press release was issued by the Kaurna themselves, regardless of whether the release is primarily about them. It's a fairly extraordinary claim (it would require a rewrite of Australian law on a similar scale to the Mabo Decision to be successful) and yet there is no mainstream or even fringe media coverage. And even then, you need to do a bit more than just hand the governor a speech to start a native title action. It's got WP:MADEUP written all over it to me.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Went to the Encompass Technology page; before I went there I thought maybe it was just a a PR firm that wrote their press release for them, which wouldn't seem so strange to me (and that may in fact be the case still), but it looks to be the only thing available on their website, which just strikes me as odd. The whole thing is odd. Do you know, have there been other tribes who've made a similar claim on Marble Hill? I'm wondering if the way to get at this might be to include it in a list of tribes that have made similar claims. A one or two-word mention of this in a list of others wouldn't be so objectionable. But with the sourcing as iffy as it is now, I am a little leery of supporting retaining this information in the article at the moment. Additionally, even if all the other questions were satisfied, and sourcing issues set aside, people can make whatever claims they want, but I'm not really sure that's enough. Just like people can sue for pretty much anything they want in court, but we don't go listing every suit pending against GE at General Electric. That standard might perhaps be useful in considering this, particularly since it wasn't covered anywhere else in the media, it seems. — e. ripley\talk 16:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Folks, just some random thoughts. There is unlikely to be another claimant due to the distribution of Aboriginal tribes in Australia. Many are geographically based, as is the case for the Kaurna with them being widely recognised as the occupants of the Adelaide Plains and the Hills that "Marble Hill" is part of. Their claim to be the sole occupants of the area, prior to 1836, is largely correct and accepted in the literature. Note though that this occupation area is very large (>8000sqkm) and to put it into context the est native population in this area in 1836 was < 1000 (was more prior to this but such are the terrors of smallpox).- Peripitus (Talk) 22:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. It's an interesting and unfortunate subject. — e. ripley\talk 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Recap

So the positions we have are:

  • Mifren - Supports inclusion on the grounds that the sources are reliable
  • Yeti Hunter - Opposes inclusion on the grounds that the sources are unreliable, and the claim cannot be verified to have been made either officially or by the actual Kaurna
  • Peripitus - Opposes inclusion on the grounds that the sources are unreliable
  • E. Ripley - Neutral on source reliability, tending to opposing inclusion on notability grounds.

Just checking that this is enough of a consensus to exclude without going to RfC. I'm not keen on reigniting an edit war.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually say also leaning to the negative on sourcing grounds as well, given the totality of the information at hand and absent any other supporting publications. I don't really see the need for an RFC frankly, although it wouldn't hurt, but really this seems to be a fairly decent consensus of editors opposed to retaining the information. — e. ripley\talk 02:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the section. — e. ripley\talk 03:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just responding on the fly at while away from base: Essentially I'm appalled by the extraordinary poor use and abuse of logic, premis, superlative reasoning and research employed by two of three wikieditors in particular YH who seems to have developed a particular precious possessiveness. I've already answered these questions and statistically a consensus of 3/4 where n=4 is insignificant thus invalid - as Sir Humphrey Appleby said in "Yes Minister", "you can prove anything with statistics, even the truth". I'm surprised too e. ripley for such a higher wikiediting authority you would allow spelling typos. When back to base, I'll give a more considered response but cannot even conditionally accept as you have not actually proved your claim/s.Mifren (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I dislike typos as much as anybody, but naturally I'm only human. I have no greater authority than any other editor. I also have made no claims that need backing up; rather, you have, and so far your sourcing and information is rather lacking. You are seeking to add information, and therefore the burden of satisfying Wikipedia's policies, particularly as it regards sourcing, fall to you. So far I am unconvinced, although I am willing to be convinced if you can address my specific concerns that are outlined above. Thank you. — e. ripley\talk 16:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to thank me, I already have if you or any other wikieditor actually read and comprehended what has been established above eg Kaurna Native Title Claim which resulted in http://oldsite.nntt.gov.au/registration/494.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mifren (talk • contribs) 16:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, okay. So here is an old claim, but it's not clear to me on what, geographically-speaking. Is there some other piece of the claim you could link to that shows what exactly is being claimed? It seems to me that the claim references land that was described in an attachment, but what that encompasses isn't obvious to me. Also, I understand that this is probably a topic of some personal interest to you, and these situations can often inspire passions, but please remember Wikipedia expects civility among editors. Comments suggesting that I or other editors don't read or comprehend what you say aren't helpful to finding an amicable resolution. — e. ripley\talk 16:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This diff from Peripitus sums it up: [5] --Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with what an "ambit claim" means. I take it from some of the past discussion here that it was a claim against a large swath of land, upon which Marble Hill happens to sit? Is that correct? — e. ripley\talk 16:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That and the City of Adelaide, among other things. Ambit = ambitious initial claim, which will be much reduced upon actual negotiation. The additional 2009 claim has nothing to do with the 2000 claim referenced above.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay. It seems silly to go adding this to every landmark or land mass that sits inside the borders of the claimed land, in that case (however, I can see the logic of claiming Marble Hill as a political calculation to attract attention). On the other hand, clearly they are making claims. Is there an article here dealing with native Australian claims generally? That might be a better spot for it. — e. ripley\talk 16:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
But we come back to the fact that the claim is unverifiable - the ref is self-published by a third party with a COI! It doesn't belong here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. The fact that one editor is being tendentious does not mean we can ignore WP:V.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd never suggest we ignore Wikipedia's policies. I was really referring to the older claim, which has a much better and more appropriate source. — e. ripley\talk 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
True. The 2000 claim did not specifically mention Marble Hill at all, though. The best information I can find is this from Mifren [6], which merely lists the local councils which are affected by the claim (MH is within Adelaide Hills Council).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Right. I think in the case of the older source, as I hinted at above, using it to support adding information to this particular article really make little sense (we can't go adding this to every landmark or land mass this claim might include by implication). But I'm trying to find a way for him to contribute fruitfully to the encyclopedia with this information, and that's why I was wondering if there is an article on native Australian claims generally that this information might fit with better. — e. ripley\talk 17:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
now hopefully the (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC) logic premis has been addressed, hopefully YH will not revert again until this discussion has reached a more logical conclusion that too is respectful of wikipolicies etc.

Australia's native title system of bias against Aboriginal claimants

Forwarded message ----------

From: Roma Mitchell Community Legal Centre Inc. <rmclc@ozemail.com.au> Date: 2009/6/4 Subject: 105th Justice & Peace Candle Light Walk around Government House, ADELAIDE - Friday 5th June from 6.30pm for 6.45pm walk


Subject: 105th Justice & Peace Candle Light Walk around Government


Please CIRCULATE and THEN attend the 105th Justice & Peace Candle Light Walk around Government House - Friday 5th June from 6.30pm for 6.45pm walk, or begin your own walk to show your lights for Murrundi (the river), lakes and Kurangk (Coorong) by a Treaty and a Bill of Rights to establish the full equity of all the Descendants.

The SECOND CENTURY of WALKS SUCCESSFULLY commenced on Sunday 26 January 2009 Join now to be a foundation part of our 2nd 100 walks (2009 SCHEDULE ON-LINE NOW ! ) SEE: http://www.premcab.sa.gov.au/dpc/department_aard_calendar.html http://www.premcab.sa.gov.au/pdf/reconciliation_calendar.pdf

FURTHER FROM LATEST BULLETIN UPDATE: "http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25549168-5013172,00.html


Reconciliation waits compensation, says Mick Dodson


David Nason, New York correspondent | May 28, 2009


Article from: The Australian


MICK Dodson has accused Australia's native title system of bias against Aboriginal claimants and warned that reconciliation will not be achieved until the Stolen Generations are paid compensation along the radical lines recommended in the 1997 Bringing Them Home report.


Speaking in New York, the veteran Aboriginal activist and Australian of the Year said native title law should be changed so the onus of proof rested with state and territory governments, not Aboriginal claimants.


He said reconciliation's other "unfinished business" included the social justice package promised to Aborigines in mid-1990s native title negotiations but never delivered; the outstanding recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody; and bridging the 11.8-year life expectancy gap between indigenous and non-indigenous people.


"There is a lot of unfinished business; we still haven't properly dealt with the question of lands," Professor Dodson said.


"The big problem we have at the moment is we have a native title system that is very unfair, that makes it almost practically impossible for indigenous people to get land back.


"We need to fix that because the sense of injustice over land is not going to go away."


Professor Dodson's remarks, his most forthright since being named Australian of the Year in January, came after he addressed a function at the Australian consulate in New York.


He said fixing native title was fundamental to achieving reconciliation but the system was failing: "The states and territories have all the information, so why shouldn't they disprove our native title claims instead of us having to prove them?"


He stands firm on the compensation provisions of the Bringing Them Home report, which he co-wrote, saying they were "fundamental" to reconciliation.


The report recommended compensation be paid individually and collectively to direct victims of the removal policies, their immediate families and dependants and any other people or groups connected to a direct victim. Some estimates put the total number of potential claimants under these provisions at more than 100,000. The Rudd Government has followed the Howard government in rejecting the recommendation.


In his address, Professor Dodson spoke of the important role played by the UN in "validating the indigenous experience".


He said Kevin Rudd's apology to the Stolen Generations last year had been a "transformative experience" for Australia because it had produced a new "respectful relationship" between indigenous and non-indigenous people.


http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,25313301-5005962,00.html


Prime Minister 'open' to reversing native title burden of proof

April 09, 2009 11:56am


Article from: AAP


The Rudd Government says it's open to the idea of reversing the burden of proof for some aspects of native title claims, making it easier for Aboriginal groups to prove their connection to land.


High Court Chief Justice Robert French has suggested three "modest changes to the native title process to lift the "heavy (emotional and financial) burden it places on the parties involved.


Most controversially, Justice French says it should be presumed that indigenous applicants have the "continous existence and vitality since sovereignty needed to establish native title.


Many claims fail because indigenous groups can't prove an on-going connection with their lands, often because they were dispossessed through the forces of colonisation.


"Such a presumption would enable the parties, if it were not to be challenged, to disregard a substantial interruption in continuity of acknowledgment and observance of traditional laws and customs, Justice French writes in the latest edition of the Australian Law Reform Commission journal.


"A presumption subject to proof to the contrary is to be preferred.


Justice French also wants the Native Title Act amended so extinguishment can be disregarded if the claimant and the relevant state government agree.


"Such agreements might be limited to crown land or reserves of various kinds.


Finally, the High Court chief justice says the Federal Court should be allowed to use an agreed statement of facts when making native title determinations by consent.


Attorney-General Robert McClelland says the Government's mind is open to shifting the burden of proof from Aboriginal claimants on to states, territories and other parties.


"In one sense, that's not inconsistent with the legal doctrine of presumption of regularity.


"In other words, if someone is the occupier of premises, you assume that they have title to those premises."Mifren (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Mifren's restoration

I'd prefer to discuss this rather than have a revert war, but as of right now there's a clear consensus among editors not to include this information, for reasons of sourcing as well as notability. Mifren, I invite you to address my concerns outlined in the prior section. Thank you for your time. — e. ripley\talk 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was in the process of doing so then unfortunately when I pressed Enter you'd just beaten me ... Mifren (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've received an email from Mifren with some information suggesting that a publication called the Coober Pedy Regional Times, which appears to be a small community weekly newspaper, published an article about the Kaurna claim on Marble Hill. It looks like the newspaper does have a website ([7]) however I've been unable to access the issue online that he's referencing. He says p. 16 of the 30 April - 13 May issue includes an article entitled "Kaurna Declare Sovereignty and $47 Million Dollar Rent Bill for Marble Hill." Maybe someone else can find more success finding this online; otherwise he's offered to email a .PDF, which would be helpful in satisfying ourselves of what was written if nothing else. Sources are preferred to be available online, but not necessarily required. — e. ripley\talk 13:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: I've been able to access the Apr. 23 issue here [8], which makes no mention that I can see. The current issue appears to be May 7, but I don't see a page 16 online. — e. ripley\talk 13:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've now looked at the .PDF and it appears to be a reproduction of their press release, rather than an article. Less satisfying than if a staff writer had actually written about it, but it is probably reasonable to assume that it did in fact come from the Kaurna and could probably be used as a source for their own claims, if we chose to include it. It's curious for a newspaper to just directly reproduce a press release, although I some really small concerns do (Mifren says it wasn't a paid placement). Regardless, we can probably assume it did come from them. — e. ripley\talk 14:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Given all the above, I'm wondering now where: "Issues affecting Aboriginal culture, heritage and social inclusion have been tabled at the Tjilbruke Dreaming Forum for discussion, input and progression. Refer Attachment 1 Councils within the southern region recognise the significance of Traditional Land Owners in the region and are assisting Aboriginal people in the protection and development of culture and identity. ... a southern region Council Working Group has pursued these broad cultural and reconciliation aims.

The Kaurna Native Title Claimant Group ... developed an alliance, through a proposed Memorandum of Understanding, with the Kaurna Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Association (KACHA), Kaurna Meyunna and the Kaurna Elders. These groups represent 27 Kaurna families and have ... become incorporated under the name of Kaurna Yerta.

identified areas included: Statement acknowledging the significance of Traditional Owners and dispossession; Protection of places of importance to the indigenous peoples; Develop a consultative framework for development, including guidelines under the Native Title Act and State Aboriginal Heritage Act; Promotion of Kaurna identity, culture and values; Sustainable economic opportunities; Provide resource and infrastructure support; Tenure options on strategic sites and facilities; Influence into the regulatory development decision-making system; Development of the Tjilbruke Track."[4] Fits into all these Marble Hill wikidiscussions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mifren (talk • contribs) 00:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't mention Marble Hill, nowhere. You will continue to be reverted.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I find your rapid interest intriguing YH, what motivates you and your logic now? I'm very impressed that you've started the Native Title article and hope this helps raise awareness and promote more benefits. I note no mention though in SA of either South Australia Letters Patent nor Proclamation 1836 conditions.Mifren (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Given the curious nature of YH's premis, logic arguments and revert position, I'm submitting the following for wikieditors involved todate to actually help re-editing the following so that dispossession and current Native Title Claim since 2000 is more satisfactory for YH decision matrix:
The 2000 Registered Kaurna Native Title Claim included Marble Hill.[5] 12 AUGUST 2003 "Issues affecting Aboriginal culture, heritage and social inclusion have been tabled at the Tjilbruke Dreaming Forum for discussion, input and progression. ... identified areas included: Statement acknowledging the significance of Traditional Owners and dispossession; Protection of places of importance to the indigenous peoples; Develop a consultative framework for development, including guidelines under the Native Title Act and State Aboriginal Heritage Act; Promotion of Kaurna identity, culture and values; Tenure options on strategic sites and facilities; Influence into the regulatory development decision-making system; Development of the Tjilbruke Track."[6] 2009 March 29 Government House Open Day Kaurna Custodians handed His Excellency Governor of South Australia Kevin Scarce their Declaration of Sovereignty and a three page speech "I Have Come" which included a $47.5M bill for 130 years back rent on Marble Hill as the former Summer Vice Regal Residence under a Heads of Agreement for sale out of the South Australian Public Estate into the private real estate market[7] [8].
Apologies, I've refactored some of the discussion above so it doesn't run on and on. My initial comment is that it's in no way structured in an encyclopedic manner, includes a lot of information that is irrelevant to this article, and is poorly-sourced (a Facebook photo and the Newsmakers link that we have already dismissed as not reliable). Yeti, what is your take on the Coober Pedy article I referenced above? Let's focus on whether this is a reliable source for the claim that the Kaurna made a claim on Marble Hill in 2009. — e. ripley\talk 13:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, Mifren, please remember to assume good faith -- you seemed baffled when I suggested to you earlier that some of your language is not very civil and so I am going to be very blunt in pointing out an instance here. You said: I find your rapid interest intriguing YH, what motivates you and your logic now? This is not as bad as some of the things you've said in the past, but regardless it is a sarcastic statement meant to indicate that you question Yeti's motives. It has no useful purpose except to inflame the discussion. Focus on the content in question, not on motivations. — e. ripley\talk 13:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
When poor reasoning or logic is being challenged or even motive questioned, which part of wikiPolicy is actually being abused (because it is personal when the 2nd person "you" is used &/or User named)? Again I see the superlative even absolute term use in "has no useful purpose except to inflame the discussion". ie Three_degrees_of_comparison#Rhetorical_use_of_unbalanced_comparatives? Whereas it actually takes more than one to inflame and the purpose was actually to learn what the then current basis or motive logic to motivate yet another revert. One reason for the above referencing dilemma is because Coober Pedy News linked is being confused as a trans-positional error with the Coober Pedy Times ... also Marble Hill Crown Land was included in the 2000 Registered Native Title Claim not in 2009 which Kaurna Declared Sovereignty external to Master (later Captain) James Cook's illegal 1770 written claim/s further demonstrated by 1st NSW Governor Capt (later Admiral) Arthur Phillip 1788 and subsequent South Australia Letters Patent 1836 Crown Claim/s thus legal fiction simply included an initial 130 year back-rent bill given that the SA Governor and Government had built on Kaurna land without any established evidence that Kaurna had sold as per the Letters Patent 1836 conditions. Again the above deductive reasoning internal logic conclusion/s is based on inaccurate assumptive premises. These truths are self evident and really should not require further justification. I note that the Consensus decision-matrix has now been removed so that then cancels out above justification for persistent undoing or reverting if good faith is assumed? While I respect the interest and regular or consistant Marble Hill article contributions by the above wikiEditor and especially now a Native Title list has been established I and other readers and editors must be allowed to assume higher competency or expectation for the undo-reverts?Mifren (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the civility policy is very clear -- you're welcome to challenge peoples' reasoning, but it must be done courteously. It only takes one person to make uncivil comments that contribute to an atmosphere that is detrimental to building an encyclopedia, and in any case, two wrongs don't make a right. If someone else is uncivil to you, that doesn't give you the right to break the civility policy yourself. I am not here to debate the policy with you.— e. ripley\talk 03:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What spefically was uncivil so I may better learn and if necessary have the natural justice of a right of reply or defence to remedy any dishonour?Mifren (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I reject the notion that the 2000 title claim is enough to include it in this article, simply because it (and every other dwelling extant) is included by implication in this enormous swath of claimed land. There may be a better place on Wikipedia for this information to be included, however, such as the list Yeti Hunter created.— e. ripley\talk 03:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Here again I note the poor logic with "(and every other dwelling extant)" because it assumes several premises that are inaccurate. In good faith I'm assuming that logic paradigm is posited from outside Australia so I'll reiterate what I've stated previously and what I expect from the two wikiEditors involved in the consensus as they both appear to be born and bred South Australians presenting almost expert Marble Hill Native Title opinions. 1stly The illegal legal fiction created since 1770 HM Bark Endeavour Master then Leutenant (later Capt) James Cook claimed New South Wales with terra nullius. Cook claimed the east coast under instruction from King George III of England on 22 August 1770 at Possession Island, naming eastern Australia 'New South Wales'. Significance The Secret Instructions, contained in the Letterbook carried on the Endeavour, include the Additional Instructions which authorised James Cook to take possession of 'a Continent or Land of great extent' thought to exist in southern latitudes. The second page instructs Cook 'with the Consent of the Natives to take possession of Convenient Situations in the Country in the Name of the King of Great Britain'.

[Thus where has any of the above wikiEditors Consensus demonstrated consent from first principals?Mifren (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)]

On his first voyage, Cook sailed in the Endeavour to Tahiti (to assist in the scientific observation of the transit of the planet Venus) and then as instructed, sailed south in search of the fabled 'Great Southern Continent'.

The Secret Instructions provided that, in the event that he found the Continent, he should chart its coasts, obtain information about its people, cultivate their friendship and alliance, and annex any convenient trading posts in the King's name. Cook followed the coast of New Zealand (thereby debunking Abel Tasman's theory that it formed part of the southern continent), then turned west, reaching the southern coast of New South Wales on 20 April 1770. He sailed north, landing at Botany Bay one week later, before continuing to chart the Australian coast all the way north to the tip of Queensland. There, on Possession Island, just before sunset on Wednesday 22 August 1770, he declared the coast a British possession:

"Notwithstand[ing] I had in the Name of His Majesty taken possession of several places upon this coast, I now once more hoisted English Coulers and in the Name of His Majesty King George the Third took possession of the whole Eastern Coast . . . by the name New South Wales, together with all the Bays, Harbours Rivers and Islands situate upon the said coast, after which we fired three Volleys of small Arms which were Answerd by the like number from the Ship."

Cook had recorded signs that the coast was inhabited during the voyage north, and here he noted as he returned to the ship the great number of fires on all the land and islands about them, 'a certain sign they are Inhabited'.

Cook then sailed through Torres Strait, returning to England in May 1771.

Cook's Secret Instructions represent Britain’s first official expressions of interest in Australia. They record the quest for scientific discovery, combined with the desire to find exploitable natural resources and to expand Britain's control of strategic trading posts around the globe. The Instructions confidently assume that these varied interests could be made compatible with a respect for the native populations in those countries so identified.Founding Documents Documenting Democracy

Then King William IV (who's wife was Queen Adelaide) extended this by having sealed the Founding Document, Letters Patent establishing the Province of South Australia 1836 which was colonised, settled, invaded, "conquered" depending on perspective and Australian High Court determination. Remembering that there is no actual evidence to proove that the "Natives" are not already Sovereign thus outside any English Law or Sovereign - something ignored, conveniently forgotten, not taught, researched etc.

Provided Always that nothing in those our Letters Patent contained shall affect or be construed to affect the rights of any Aboriginal Natives of the said Province to the actual occupation or enjoyment in their own Persons or in the Persons of their Descendants of any Lands therein now actually occupied or enjoyed by such Natives

Governor Hindmarsh Commander-in-Chief Proclamation 1836 Specifically the original long hand image http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/enlargement.asp?eID=4&pID=2

Proclamation By His Excellency John Hindmarsh, Knight of the Royal Hanoverian Guelphie Order, Governor and Commander in Chief of His Majesty’s Province of South Australia In announcing to the colonists of His Majesty’s Province of South Australia, the establishment of the Government, I hereby call upon them to conduct themselves on all occasions with order and quietness, duly to respect the laws, and by a course of industry and sobriety, by the practice of sound morality and a strict observance of the Ordinances of Religion, to prove themselves worthy to be the Founders of a great free colony. It is also, at this time especially, my duty to apprize the Colonists of my resolution, to take every lawful means for extending the same protection to the Native Population as to the rest of His Majesty’s subjects and of my firm determination to punish with exemplary severity all acts of violence or injustice which may in any manner be practiced or attempted against the Natives who are to be considered as much under the safeguard of the Law as the Colonists themselves, and equally entitled to the privileges of British subjects. I trust therefore, with confidence to the exercise of moderation and forbearance by all Classes in their intercourse with the Native Inhabitants, and that they will omit no opportunity of assisting me to fulfil His Majesty’s most gracious and benevolent intentions toward them by promoting their advancement in civilization and ultimately, under the blessing of Divine Providence, their conversion to the Christian Faith. By His Excellency’s Command, Robert Gouger Colonial Secretary God Save the King.

The term British Subject only actually applied to the colonists "It is also, at this time especially, my duty to apprize the Colonists of my resolution, to take every lawful means for extending the same protection to the Native Population as to the rest of His Majesty’s subjects"

Australian Native Title since Mabo only applies to Crown Land not buildings and certainly not "dwellings". Thus as again resorting to yet another absolute term like "every" other dwelling continues to be illogical because many if not most "dwellings" are free hold Torrens Title (which was developed here in South Australia and exported as a proprietary land system globally). These fundamental aspects of current South Australian and Commonwealth of Australia Law need to be better comprehended before making such broad sweeping stereotypical arguments to justify conclusions. This again for me demonstrates the on-going lack of respect and resourcing thus dispossession of Kaurna since 1836 if not before with small pox down along the Murray River apparently decimating the Kaurna population down to 1000. From which there are only 8 apical ancestors identified from which contemporary descendents are Registered as Named Claimants in 2000.Mifren (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 claim directly against Marble Hill is a different matter, however whether or not your sourcing for this claim can be considered reliable or not is still unresolved. Wikipedia takes very little to be self-evident, except the truly self-evident, such as "the sky is blue." Other claims must be backed up with proper sourcing, including this. Consensus against what you are seeking to include has not "been removed." I have not seen anyone here change their opinions. However, since I have referenced the Coober Pedy article you brought forward, the other editors do need to weigh in on whether or not they find this a reliable source. That is where we are now. Let's try to stay focused. — e. ripley\talk 03:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Again I note the erroneous use of the "2009 claim" which is not a "claim" as that has already been Registered 9 years earlier. Again the lack of logic blocks or frustrates effective or real communication. It is a ~130 year back-rent bill based on the Kaurna Declaration of Sovereignty handed to the Crown Vice-Regal Representative SA Governor. Thus your consensus claim is not logical based on erroneous premises and yet it is my reverts in good faith that are persecuted prosecuted and penalised with a record and 24h ban - scapegoating. Related concepts include frameup, patsy, whipping boy and fall guy. PLEASE remedy this good faith disrespect for posterity restore wiki Article Marble Hill Native Title Section.Mifren (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I see Consensus#Consensus_can_change and now that kadbury0 has refuted some earlier comment, what is the current Consensus? In other words there appears to be a stalemate of 2.5 v 2.5 which on balance suggests to me inclusion.Mifren (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Kadbury, a new editor with all of two edits, who seems to have found his way directly to Yeti's talk page to post entirely in regards to this article, appears to be a meatpuppet, whose sudden appearance has little weight here in determining consensus. — e. ripley\talk 03:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was unaware of that perspective and note: "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care." As the Speech Author, in all honesty I thought that a right of reply was worthy of consideration hence my referral. For posterity and the sake of Kaurna Sovereignty, Native Title, self determination & empowerment I'll leave this revisionist history and wikiwar for others to decide as I've squandered far too much time, consideration, efforts, money and lost earnings to really be worth worrying anymore about this bureacratic attitude, behaviour and approach. YOU WIN. File:Page16 April 30 2009.pdf Mifren (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

still restoring

File:NATIVETITLEMHILL.JPG

Finally after all the self-opinionated & appointed wikigate keepers have continuously sought to self-justifiably undo or otherwise revert and continue the 1770 James Cook, 1834 South Australia Act barren wasteland terra nullius and 1836 King William IV South Australia Letters Patent and Governor Hindmarsh Proclamation legal fictions, I've been able to not only rediscover but also now as a jpg file be able to remove the essential identifying information to produce (Edited for readability - see image at right -Yeti Hunter (talk)) Hopefully finally this will now answer Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC) question "Mifren, do you have a reliable source for this diff?" In fact there remains other Marble Hill South Australia Government FOI Documentation YH & any other wikiEditor really seeking awareness can access.Mifren (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate that it seems you've gone to significant effort to research and present this information, it doesn't change the fact that it is a primary source. I've already sought advice regarding this specific case, and the answer was unequivocal. If you wish, you can send me the other documentation you have by using wikipedia email (go to my userpage, click on "email this user" on the left). That won't mean that WP:NOR can be ignored, but at least I will better understand your position.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
What I find fascinating is the extra-ordinary lengths to which Marble Hill Native Title has been constantly undone or reverted. In response to the latest strawman arguement I note how like our Australian Prime Ministers frame Referenda Questions, the fact that this DEC Ministerial correspondence is outgoing and thus to the Friends of Marble Hill President Incorporated under the Friends of Parks Inc thus answerable to we the people via OCBA, not an "Email", not "interdepartmental" correspondence Is a Freedom of Information request OR? thus again I fail to see the point of reverting.Mifren (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What I find equally fascinating is the on-going self-styled approach "the answer was unequivocal" as though somehow as a wikiEditor YetiHunter seems so egocentric that being a judge in your own court applies "to this specific case". Especially when nothing "specific" from "this case" was actually asked, "Is information obtained via a freedom of information request (eg, governmental emails, interdepartmental reportes, etc) original research? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)" an appalling abuse of logic. It's almost no longer worth any more time, effort, consideration, lost earnings and wasted money on on-going reverts.

Welcome to Country?

Removing acknowledgement of Kaurna and Peramangk country without discussion removes context. Especially as a Vice-Regal residence where explicit statements have been made,

Lawyer Shaun Berg said in his Presentation at ‘Wodlianni – 173rd Anniversary of the Letters Patent’ at Government House on 19 February 2009, "To use the words of Tom Trevorrow, Ngarrindjeri Elder: ‘We need to come to terms with this, so that we can come to terms with each other.” Regardless of how difficult this may be, I think that we have the capacity to work through these issues but what we must not do is to say ‘we didn’t know’ because ‘Everybody knew’. [including King William IV knew, the Colonial Office knew, the Commissioners in England knew, Governor Hindmarsh knew, Resident Commissioner Fisher knew, Governor Gawler knew, and the colonists and land speculators knew ...]"

"the government in 1836 ‘knew’ that the founding documents of the State of South Australia protected the Aboriginal inhabitants right to land; and" ... "These documents include the Letters Patent of William IV. In asserting sovereignty for the British over this State he directed: ‘nothing in those our Letters Patent contained shall affect or be construed to affect the rights of any Aboriginal natives of the said Province to the actual occupation or enjoyment in their own Persons or in the Persons of their Descendants of any Lands therein now actually occupied or enjoyed by such Natives’ In the Proclamation of the State Governor Hindmarsh said: ‘It is also, at this time especially, my duty to apprize the Colonists of my resolution, to take every lawful means for extending the same protection to the NATIVE POPULATION as to the rest of His Majesty’s Subjects’"

Also "The Commissioners in England also knew what the instructions were, because not only did some of them draft the Letters Patent, but they also made plain their intentions in their official reports to the British Parliament, and importantly in exercising their powers under the Foundation Act they gave instructions to the Resident Commissioner. They instructed [8 October 1836]: You will see that no land which the natives may possess in occupation or enjoyment be offered for sale until previously ceded by the Natives to yourself. You will furnish the protector of the aborigines evidence of the faithful fulfillment of the Bargain or treaties which you may effect with the Aborigines for the cession of lands, and you will take care that the Aborigines are not disturbed in the enjoyment of the land over which they may possess proprietary rights and for which they are not disposed to make a voluntary transfer. In 1838 the British Parliament enshrined the words of the Letters Patent into legislation. In that same year a new Governor and Resident Commissioner was appointed. He was given the same instructions in his capacity as Resident Commissioner as Fisher had been given. Each of these documents are legal documents; letters patent, orders in council, reports to parliament and legislation. If valid, to not follow them, when they should have been followed, is to act contrary to the law. The British Parliament created a system to protect Aboriginal rights to land in South Australia. A system to protect the rights of those Aboriginal People living in 1836 and for their descendents living now. We know today these laws were not followed." http://antarsa.auspics.org.au/wodlianni/ShaunBerg.pdf

See also: "Indigenous Australians and the law" By Johnsto Hinton, Elliott Johnston, Martin G. Hinton, Daryle Rigney Mifren (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to the allegation that acknowledging Kaurna or Peramangk is not wiki Policy (perhaps this is an opportunity to address that perceived weakness since King George III Royal Proclamation 1763?):

Kaurna Welcome Protocols

It is now commonplace for events to begin with a welcome to Kaurna land speech by a Kaurna Elder, often Kauwanu (Uncle) Lewis O’Brien or Ngarpadla (Auntie) Josie Agius, or sometimes by a younger person such as a student at Kaurna Plains School where Kaurna is taught. [ADD PHOTOS] Whilst these speeches take a variety of forms, a minimalist Kaurna speech is reproduced here in order to familiarise people with a few of the common elements within these speeches.

Ngangkinna, meyunna! Na marni?

Ngai narri _________.

Martuityangga Kaurna meyunna, ngai wanggandi “Marni naa budni Kaurna yertaanna.”

Ngaityo yakkanandalya, yungandalya.

Translation

Ladies and gentlemen, are you (all) good? (ie hello)

My name is _________

On behalf of the Kaurna people I say “It’s good that you (all) came to Kaurna country” (ie welcome)

My dear sister(s) (and) brother(s). (ie thank you)

Several non-Indigenous organisations are now wanting to respond with some words of recognition of Kaurna country and Kaurna people in the language of the land. Accordingly statements of acknowledgement have now been developed in Kaurna. ACC Statement of Acknowledgement

At its meeting of 27 May 2002, the Adelaide City Council accepted the need to acknowledge the traditional lands of the Kaurna people at the opening of every Council meeting.

A very brief statement of acknowledgement in the Kaurna language is as follows:

Kaurna meyunna, Kaurna yerta, ngadlu tampendi.

‘We recognise Kaurna people and their land.’

The Adelaide City Council acknowledgement in English reads:

“Adelaide City Council acknowledges that we are meeting on the traditional country of the Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains.

We recognise and respect their cultural heritage, beliefs and relationship with the land. We acknowledge that they are of continuing importance to the Kaurna people living today.”

A Kaurna translation of this follows:

ACCrlo tampendi, ngadlu Kaurna yertangga banbabanbalyarnendi (inbarendi). Kaurna meyunna yaitya mattanya Womma Tarndanyako.

Parnako yailtya, parnuko tappa purruna, parnuko yerta ngadlu tampendi. Yellaka Kaurna meyunna itto yailtya, tappa purruna, yerta kuma burro martendi, burro warriappendi, burro tangka martulyaiendi.

A simplified version, that is a little more detailed than the brief acknowledgement is as follows:


Ngadlu yerlteriburka ACCko tampendi ngadlu Kaurna yertangga inbarendi.

Kaurna meyunnarlo parnako yerta, yailtyanna, tappa purruna kuma burro martendi, burro tangka martulyaiendi. Yaintya ngadlu tampendi.

‘We Adelaide City Councillors acknowledge that we are meeting on Kaurna land.

Kaurna people still embrace and long for their land, beliefs and way of life. This we recognise.’

Anglicare Statement of Acknowledgement

Original Anglicare Wording:

“We acknowledge the Kaurna people as the traditional owners of this land. We acknowledge their living culture and unique role in the life of this region”

Kaurna translation:

Ngadlu Kaurna meyunna tampendi. Parna yerta mattanya bukkiunangko.

Ngadlu tampendi Kaurna meyunna burro purruna.

Pangkarra Womma Kaurna, Kaurnakundi yerta.

Literal translation of Kaurna version:

We acknowledge the Kaurna people. They are the land owners from a long time ago.

We recognise (that) the Kaurna people are still alive (ie have survived)

The territory of the Kaurna Plains is exclusively Kaurna land.

It was acknowledged that there is some redundancy in this text. It was felt that the first line or the last line could be used independently as a short version, or the entire text could be used. Catholic Education – Acknowledgement of Kaurna Land

In 2002, Catholic Education requested a Kaurna statement of acknowledgement of Kaurna land that could be used at assemblies in Catholic schools located in Kaurna country. The following statement was formulated:

Ngadlu tampendi Kaurna meyunna yerta mattanya Womma Tarndanyako.

‘We recognise (that) Kaurna people are the landowners and custodians of the Adelaide Plains.’ Mifren (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the existence of such a protocol, which I'm not here to debate, Wikipedia is not obliged to follow it for every geographic-place article in the encyclopaedia. If you'd like to campaign for it to become policy, as you seem to suggest, feel free. But the statement as it stands is inappropriately written anyway - the Adelaide Hills Council is not a Kaurna organisation. And I am not aware of any source which places Marble Hill "near Peramangk country". I thought that was well to the east, but maps are difficult to come by, it seems. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Marble Hill 130 Years Back Rent Due

I imagine that YH will rush to undo "29 Jun 2009 Kaurna Named Native Title Claimants and families of at least two apical ancestors rallied at South Australia Parliament House Steps over the 90 days Marble Hill 130 year back rent bill due then proceeded to Government House handing the speech reminding the Governor that he'd sought the Premier's advice without responding to Ngangki burka MEKAUWE Georgina Yambo Williams.[9]" Thus I invite all wikieditors to 1st discuss their reasoning here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mifren (talk • contribs) 20:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, I will. For all the same reasons we have gone over and over and over.
  • For starters, what you've written isn't supported by the source you've given (I'll get to its reliability in a moment). The source speaks of the protest in the future tense, and says nothing of going to Government House or the Kaurna's ancestry.
  • The Coober Pedy Times, whose editorial rigour is doubtful and who we know has printed a press release at your request once before, now prints another article whose prose bears a lot of striking similarity to other things written by Matt Fowler (User:Mifren). It is once again the only newspaper in SA to see fit to print this. Did you ask them to print this yourself?
  • It seems to be mostly a rehash of the (also unreliable, self-published) Newsmaker press release of a few weeks ago.
  • It doesn't have any quotes from any actual Kaurna at all. The only quote attributed to the Kaurna elder was in fact an excerpt from a speech written by your friend Sam Rossi, a speech which was "handed" to the governor rather than spoken, or so your unreliable source claims.
  • There is no source, verifiable or not, that claims the protest actually happened. The Coober Pedy Times article appeared before the protest's supposed start time (the time is currently 0930 and http://en.wordpress.com/tag/marble-hill-on-kaurna-land/ claims the article was written "20 hours ago", ie about an hour before the "protest").
Mifren, did this protest actually happen? If it did, then fine, but the basis of inclusion into Wikipedia is verfiability, not truth. I am yet to see anything to convince me that you didn't make this whole thing up yourself.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: A reliable source, finally - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/01/2614089.htm. Whether this merits inclusion or not is up for debate ("a claim of sovereignty and a bill for $50 million in back-rent was rejected in 2009 on the basis that Native Title had been extinguished in the 1800s," perhaps?). It does say that there is some land to the north that may be subject to Native Title, but it appears to refer to the 2000 claim which does not specifically relate to Marble Hill, as discussed at length above. May I suggest that both Mifren and I deal ourselves out of this debate and get another WP:3O.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The following photographic documentation may in fact help this determination:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=71928&id=618637254&l=e220991089

Equally where is the documented proof of our South Australia Attorney-General' Department saying, "native title over the site was extinguished in the 1800s." Especially when we read the King William IV South Australia Letters Patent and Governor Hindmarsh's Proclamation 1836 terms and conditions is the evidence for negotiating sovereign Kaurna lands? As we know Native Title is a weak law since our Australian High Court's Mabo Case 1992 determination. Living Kaurna Sovereignty is above and outside any of our whitefellas legal fictions or laws beneath the Crown. Mifren (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Kaurna Land Claim References

I have removed the following references as, though I have taken the time to actually read them, there is no reference to Marble Hill at all:

http://www.oratsic.gov.au/Document.aspx?documentID=189324 Applicant and Registered Native Title Claimant in native title determination application Garth Agius and Other v The State of South Australia and Others (S 6001 OF 2000)
http://www.orac.gov.au/Document.aspx?documentID=137878&concernID=104043 Documents for Kaurna Yerta Aboriginal Corporation

These constant edits and reverts are coming mightily close to an editwar - might I suggest a WP:RfC? There seems to be a few contentious points here between a number of parties, so perhaps an outside opinion is warranted. ABVS1936 (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ABVS1936 does that stand for A Barossa Valley Son b.1936? Also what does Yeti Hunter mean for you?
In answer to your concern the last edit was actually in reference context to the Adelaide Plains, not Marble Hill. I ask politely therefore for you to undo your revert please. It is my hope then that too is unequivocably undisputed?
Also the next most appropriate, assertive, curteous thing for you to do would be to make and take the time to visit Warriparinga Living Kaurna Culture Centre, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, Marion where our Cultural Development Officers (and Traditional Owners) of our South Australian Premier Public Estate former Summer Vice Regal Residence Marble Hill in the 2000 Registered Native Title Land Claim would be in a good position to be respected and resourced to answer your questions. You will also see the Official Kaurna Native Title Map which includes the area now also known as Marble Hill. Also from above Kaurna Grannies have formally billed our SA Governor $47.5 million AUD for >130 years Marble Hill backrent 29 Mar 2009 and formally reminded 29 Jun 2009, now owing interest.
Also For Your Information further to the then DEH Minister Hon Gail Gago MLC's 2006 Official Response originally for former DEH Minister John Hill Marble Hill Native Title was in question and so the latest is from:
Bekim Baljeski Information Officer Office of the Hon Jay Weatherill MP Minister for Environment and Conservation Minister for Early Childhood Development Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation 2009/7/15 Emailed a pdf attached, "Ref: 09MEC1880 The Minister for Environment and Conservation, the Hon Jay Weatherill MP, has asked me to acknowledge your email received 3 July 2009, regarding Marble Hill and Native Title matters.
The Minister is having the matters you have raised examined and will forward a response to you at the earliest opportunity.
Yours sincerely
apparent [natural signature]
Melissa Maida
Operations Manager
14/7/2009" Mifren (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Mifren, if the references you added don't pertain to the Marble Hill site, but instead reference the Adelaide Hills in general, then those references are inappropriate for the article. As far as I could tell, the first reference was nothing more than the standing orders or terms of reference of an organisation - the Kaurna Yerta Aboriginal Corporation - and was hardly the "Applicant and Registered Native Title Claimant in native title determination" you listed it as. The second reference you added was the Index Page from the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations - as far as I can tell there is no reference to Marble Hill there either. Your suggestion that I go to either the Kaurna Cultural Centre in Bedford Park is not a feasable way to resolve this dispute, nor would speaking with the "Traditional Owners" of the site: references should be verifiable. That is, if I did speak with them, or went to the Cultural Centre, how would that pertain to the question at hand - that is, the lack of verifiable references that specifically mention the Marble Hill site?
What I suggest you do, is to perhaps go to these places yourself, as you seem to be more than familiar with them, gather some reliable, verifiable references, and then add them to the article. Also, perhaps when you receive a response from Hon. Jay Weatherhill MP, if there is any usable information that can be verified by an outside observer, that it may be suitable to add the information here; but may I suggest that you discuss it on the Talk page prior to adding it, as this article is already dangerously close to breaking out in a full-scale editwar - which benefits no-one. ABVS1936 (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I have. What I find fascinating is that born and bred whitefella Caucasian Anglo-European, possibly WASP White Anglo-Saxon Protestant South Australians have had to wait until an English born (Londoner), raised in New South Wales, recently moved from (formerly South Australia's) Northern Territory to Kangaroo Island 2004 who stood for our 2007 Australian Parliament as a Kingston Candidate and incidently drove past Warriparinga Living Kaurna Cultural Centre, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, Marion, dropped in to show some respect and others who actually live on the mainland, North Island do not, cannot be bothered to do the same ...
Irrespective here are some of Norman B Tindale's recorded Kaurna names around what is also now called Marble Hill. North Adelaide Hills and Kaurna Great Grandmother Ngangkiburka Georgina Yambo Williams also 2000 Registered Named Native Title Claimant Management Committee Vice Chair is pointing[10] [11] at what we now call Marble Hill
also given Adelaide Plains was mentioned Kaurna & Peramangk internal links as per Australian High Court Mabo Decision 1992, Royal Proclamation 1763, South Australia Letters Patent & Proclamation 1836 see also Discussion Page, I've updated accordingly ...Mifren (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Facebook ≠ reliable.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
As Yeti Hunter put it, Facebook (indeed, social networking sites in general) is not a reliable source for adding information to wikipedia. I will again state that we are coming dangerously close to an all-out editwar here - there have already been a number of violations of the 3RR as far as I can see, so how about we try and work this out in discussion first? For the sake of accuracy, I'm going to revert the addition of the links to Kaurna and Peramangk in the Lead, as the Adelaide Hills are never referred to as the "Kaurna Adelaide Hills", nor are the Adelaide Plains referred to as the "Kaurna Adelaide Plains", and leaving Peramangk in that sentence makes no sense, with regard to syntax, when describing the location of Marble Hill. As for resolving this dispute: Mifren, I would like you to describe in plain terms why you feel this information is needed in this article, which is about a historic South Australian building and property. Unless there is some documented evidence that this is a contentious issue among the public, and that it can be proven by the addition of reliable sources, that it doesn't unbalance the information in the article, and that it is added in such a way that does not "break" the article and make it into an unreadable jumble of POV statements and political bantering, then it does not belong in this article.
As for your previous comments regarding my lineage, and indeed my religion, this is not the place for such discussions. And with regard to my ability or conviction for making a visit to the Warriparinga Living Kaurna Cultural Centre - it bothers me not what a KI "politician" does with his spare time, but the onus is for the moment on you, not me, to provide reliable references to support your statements here. ABVS1936 (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously your perogative is just that however our South Australian resident and Australian Citizen responsibilities are at least morally and ethically subject to The Bible, King John Sealed Magna Carta, King George III Sealed Royal Proclamation 1763, British Admiralty Secret Sealed Orders to Endeavour Master James Cook 1768, King William IV South Australia Letters Patent and Vice Regal Representative Governor Hindmarsh Commander in Chief Proclamation 1836 which has affected Kaurna >40 000 year occupation (traditional ownership) and their subsequent 8 apical ancestor descendents since. Your seeming obsession in reverting my good faith contributions without a clearer collaborative, inclusive approach has not helped. Marble Hill is the former summer Vice Regal Residence. For the record I do not identify as a "politician" insofar I became increasingly aware of our whitefella irresponsibility to Kaurna through simply standing as a 2007 Australian Parliamentary Kingston Candidate with our Australian Democrats. As I stood for our 2006 Kangaroo Island Mayoral Candidacy in order to help facilitate a more democratic process. I received 15% of the vote after only 2.5 years on KI. I do identify as a Queen's Scout and am subject to my Scout's Promise and Law to the Queen as our 1953 Crown Coronated Constitutional Monarch. The three Crown Rights are to be consulted, encourage and to warn. I have in my rising awareness sought to do so and bear witness to this Premier Public Estate Property being sold out of Public Posterity into a relatively unregulated private market. I would appreciate it if you could/ would help recognise Kaurna sovereignty as per our responsibilities and obligations to our Founding Documents conditions rather than hinder.Mifren (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Confuse

Is this article about Marble Hill district of the Adelaide Hills Council or Marble Hill former Vice-Regal summer residence for the Governor of South Australia from 1880 to 1955.

It has "Infobox Australian Place" but the article is about Marble Hill residence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzi (talk • contribs)

actually its Kaurna Yerta Sovereignty preceeding any post King William IV South Australia Letters Patent & Proclamation 1836 is what this article is about upon which Marble Hill the former summer Vice Regal Residence 1878-1955 has been in subsequent Crown Land Public Estate thus 1992 Australian High Court Mabo Decision Native Title dispute since ... Kaurna have never ceded Sovereignty over these lands and we whitefellas have and cannot prove our claim with any evidence to the effect of the Letters Patent & Proclamation 1836.Mifren (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point Muzi. Not actually sure on this one. "Marble Hill" is actually a recognised suburb, but it has the same postcode as Ashton, South Australia, and its population etc are recorded together with Ashton in the census. However the most notable aspect of the district is undoubtedly the residence, hence the confusing nature of the article. I suspect this would be substantially addressed by adding a paragraph or two on the district. Perhaps the information about the house itself should be decreased. after all, much of it is perhaps bordering on trivia - such as what each governor did during residency. I added that originally, i'm open to suggestion as to whether it should stay.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


ABVS1936 reverts

Dear ABVS etal

I note despite your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ABVS1936#Welcome reference to: "• Build consensus • Resolving disputes • Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette" that you choose to use the words and phrase, "reverting nonsense again - this is beginning to get ridiculous". What specifically “lacks any coherent meaning”? Further I refer you to http://auspics.org.au/bill_of_rights/dominiumCASE29_8_04.pdf in an attempt to "• Build consensus • Resolving disputes • Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette", respect, recognition and resourcing Kaurna; "[Kaurna] have NEVER surrendered this DOMINIUM because, on 19 February 1836, in an EXERCISE of the PREROGATIVE (a form of LEGAL power the CROWN exercises by EXECUTIVE act not otherwise authorised by LEGISLATION of the Parliament or the exercise of JUDICIAL power by a judge of a Court), Letters Patent were issued establishing the legal power of the Crown to hold land in South Australia, but which declared the traditional owners could legally continue to occupy and enjoy the lands they inhabited and that their descendants were equally entitled to continue to occupy and enjoy these lands their ancestors inhabited."Mifren (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Kaurna & Peramangk

Given our Australian High Court Mabo v Queensland (No 2) Decision 1992, that the King George III Royal Proclamation of 1763 was seen to apply to "Australia at the time of settlement, and therefore governed unceded territories", what inhibits Wikipedia Editors Revision history of Marble Hill, South Australia recognition of Kaurna & Peramangk Sovereignty preceding King William IV South Australia Letters Patent 1836?

Provided Always that nothing in those our Letters Patent contained shall affect or be construed to affect the rights of any Aboriginal Natives of the said Province to the actual occupation or enjoyment in their own Persons or in the Persons of their Descendants of any Lands therein now actually occupied or enjoyed by such Natives

Further, a recent example of revisionist history includes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marble_Hill,_South_Australia&diff=326279131&oldid=324133972

Requesting independent qualified historians and geographers thus neutral wikiEditors to review and help facilitate due process & best practice Mifren (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are reliable secondary sources that establish that the site of this house specifically is seriously and notably claimed by anyone, that would be worth mentioning. Without such sources - and in my short trawl through the history of this article I haven't seen them - the matter is not really suitable for an encyclopedia. If the site is included within an area that has suitable documentation as being claimed, again a very brief mention might be appropriate, or a See also to, for example, List of native title claims in South Australia, which mentions the Kaurna. But this is an article about a mildly-notable building, and I would not suggest including any long discourse from primary sources or on the general subject of land claims in the area. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard, your comment has hit the nail on the head. If a source (book, newspaper etc.) is talking about Marble hill and discusses the original inhabitants in this context then there is a reliable source to back up a mention. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Richard and Peripitus

Thank you for your serious considerations. I have left this in the hope then that there may have been more considerate clearly qualified, expert historians comments by now ...

1/ I again fail to truly comprehend how you both could not consider the twisted twin Sovereignty tales since: a) HM Bark Endeavour Master Lt James Cook dispossessed Sovereignty at "Possession Island" in the name of King George III 1770 thus apparently breaching HM Royal Navy British Admiralty Secret Sealed Orders 1768. b) HM 3rd Royal Son & Heir, King William IV South Australia Letters Patent 1836 in addition to Governor Capt John Hindmarsh Commander in chief Proclamation 1836 commemorated on Proclamation Day Dec28 annually since.

2/ "Hon Gail Gago MLC FOI COPY

06EC0943 Government of South Australia Minister for Environment and Conservation Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Minister Assisting the Minister in Health 9th Floor, Chesser House, 91-97 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000 GPO Box 1047 Adelaide SA 5001 DX 138 Telephone (08) 8463 5680 Facsimile (08) 8463 5681

Dear Mr M

Thank you for your email to the former Minister for Environment and Conservation, Hon John Hill MP, concerning the EOI (Expression of Interest) process for Marble Hill. I apologise for the delay in this response.

As you may be aware, it was discovered in 2004 that native title continues to exist on some of the land at Marble Hill. This prevented the offer of the land either for sale or long term lease and has necessitated a rearrangement of the parcels of land before the EOI could be released. ... 4 May 2006"

How then may I/we resolve these two Kaurna & Peramangk V British Crown Sovereignty land claim issues after India, Uluru Oct 1985 and Hong Kong 1997 were handed back? Mifren (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

How may you resolve these land claim issues? With difficulty, I imagine. I'm not offering to help you or the Kaurna doing so, nor is such an aim any part of Wikipedia.
We are trying here to write an encyclopedic article about a building. Land claims to the site may indeed be worth mentioning in this article, but only very briefly. Detailed accounts of the legal history of land claims in Australia do not belong here. To resolve the specific issue about this article, I hope that you will find secondary sources (i.e. not the primary legal sources that you mention) that describe those specific claims to this site, or another Wikipedia article such as the one I suggested above which does so, and supply a referenced and/or wikilinked very short comment. To put it in perspective, I would think it reasonable to put in one line of text, two at most, under a specific heading, perhaps "Native title land claims to the site". The text might - if and only if you can find the secondary sources please - say something like "The entire area is subject to a native title land claim by the Kaurna, which presently encumbers its possible sale or long-term lease." A "See also" or other wikilink might reasonably go to List of native title claims in South Australia if, as I can only guess, the Kaurna claim mentioned in that article includes some or all of the site of Marble Hill. http://www.nntt.gov.au strikes me as a reliable source but even [9] is not specific about which areas the Kaurna land claim includes. I think I'll leave further research to you.
Just my opinion, I hope this helps! Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Much of the presented argument is either Synthesis (reliable sources do not mention Marble Hill and Kaurna in context) or original research, there is some reliable information that can be used. The Kaurna did present a claim for the area, including back rent, and the state government did reject the claim. How about a line of text

  • Marble hill is within the area often noted as traditional Kaurna land.(lots of references for this) In 2009 the Kaurna people(text used by the ABC) presented a claim, and an "unpaid rent" bill for $47.5 million, for the site"AN ADELAIDE FIRST, KAURNA PEOPLE CALL FOR THE RENT ON MARBLE HILL". Coober Pedy Regional Times. June 29, 2009. but this claim was rejected by the Attorney-General's Department who noted that "native title over the site was extinguished in the 1800s"."SA Govt rejects Marble Hill claim". Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

If there is a reliable source apart from these (and the first is simply a press release) that talks about the Kaurna or Peramangk in context with Marble Hill then more could be added. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I finally feel as though we now are getting somewhere. Have another look at the latest edit I've contributed to the Article.Mifren (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I have been loathe to enter this discussion since RFCs are meant to bring in outside opinions, but I think I should point out the following:
  • The Coober Pedy Regional Times "article" was agreed to be of very sketchy notability in discussions above. Their print-edition didn't even include it, and the front page story was about a local girl's 21st birthday. It's a community newsletter, not a "newspaper".
  • User:Mifren, AKA Matt Fowler, is the principle agitator of the claim. He is known to have requested the CPRT to print the story as discussed above. WP:COI and WP:SPS all over the place.
  • The ABC source, which is reliable, deals briefly and exclusively with reporting the rapid rejection of the "claim".
  • It is unsurprising that some nearby land is subject to the completely unrelated 2000 claim, as all Crown land is subject to that ongoing claim.
If this particular claim is so notable, then why did Mifren have to go as far afield as Coober Pedy to find someone who would run the story? This whole thing is a great big WP:REDFLAG, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This doesn't even begin to satisfy such criteria. IMHO. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
NATURAL JUSTICE RIGHT OF REPLY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FEAR OR FAVOUR: - "get behind me Satan"?

"Draft map only.

Prepared by Land Services Group, Department of Administrative and Information Services

Names as recorded by Norman B Tindale

Kaur[n]a people and others with appropriate knowledge are invited to advise of any corrections or alterations to the names as shown.

Please give any information to Ribgner Green, Manager of this Centre.

Boundary of Kaurna Native Title Claim shown thus http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1841505&id=618637254&l=0533575eab#/photo.php?pid=1841522&id=618637254&l=0533575eab&fbid=100619987254

  • Clearly pointing out Sovereign Kaurna Yerta (Land) naming Marble Hill, Cherryville etc from pre-1836

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1841505&id=618637254&l=0533575eab#/photo.php?pid=1841521&id=618637254&l=0533575eab&fbid=100619982254

Q: :If this particular claim is so notable, then why did Mifren have to go as far afield as Coober Pedy to find someone who would run the story?
*A: I did not. Thus YH use real logic over your own assumptive, presumptive biased, prejudical speculation and ask mainstream Murdoch Media, University Departments, other mainstream Media like the Independent Weekly and dare I mention Kaurna?
"But Liberal sources say the then federal Member for Mayo, Alexander Downer, worked equally hard for the Opposition to quietly accept the sale. Some Opposition members believed this is because of a personal relationship between Mr Downer and the purchasers." Remember too that it was Alexander Downer's grandfather Sir John Downer who suppressed South Australian Police (now SAPOL) murdering or massacreing ~600 Top End Sovereign Original People - the sins of the father visited upon the 3rd & 4th generations? Yes, YH, "Australia" continues to have a "black history" no matter how much we whitefellas may want to whitewash ... with our revisionist "history written by the victors", wiki-war writings.
Historian Tony Roberts says senior colonial politicians and South Australian police 'masterminded, condoned or concealed... atrocities' in the Gulf country for the deaths of at least 600 people. He revealed key details in a recent speech, saying he's been surprised by what he discovered about this period of Australia history.
Rough Justice is part two of Frontier Justice: A History of the Gulf Country to 1900, and will be ready for publication next year."
"Frontier violence during the settlement of Australia has been well documented, although the extent of it has been disputed in recent years. In this discussion historian Tony Roberts describes his research, which reveals excessive violence against Aborigines in the Gulf country of northern Australia in the late 19th century. He claims massacres were carried with the complicity of various politicians and police at the time, including Sir John Downer, twice premier of South Australia and one of the founding fathers of Australian Federation." http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2689027.htm
Matthew Fowler BSc (UWoll 1988)
http://www.facebook.com/matthewrobertfowler?ref=name
NAIDOC Non Indigenous Person of the Year 1996 Central Australia Co-Recipient
Figtree Networks http://www.figtree-networx.com.au
Our continuing Mission since 12 July 1996: community synergy through personal, professional & community development ...
REMEMBER that there is no "I" in TEAM = Together Everybody Achieves More &
Work SMART = Specific+Measureable+Achieveable+Realistic+Timely
If you are not part of the solution, are you part of the problem!???
I, a Queen's Scout by Royal Warrant 1983, acknowledge Yerta, this Land around "Adelaide", as the Sovereign Lands (& Traditional) of so far 9x identified Apical Ancestral Sovereign Original People from pre-1836 of this island continent sometime known as La Australia del Espiritu Santo (the southern land of the Holy Spirit), Terra Australis incognita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Australis_Incognita and that I respect, recognise, support and seek to help resource their descendants' Spiritual, Physical, Economic, Mental and Social-Emotional relationship with their Country's Sovereignty in perpetuity. I also recognise the Sovereign Custodians before our 1986 "Queen of Australia" & 1836 "Adelaide Region" and that their inherent Cultural and Spiritual beliefs continue to sustain descendants living today. WITHOUT PREJUDICE -
ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDMifren (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ News - Premier & Ministers of South Australia
  2. ^ http://hansard.parliament.sa.gov.au/pages/loaddoc.aspx?sp=10032 Marble Hill (Protection) Bill - Second Reading
  3. ^ http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/news.php?id=3860 Jay Weatherill press release
  4. ^ http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:182w1wr2PMUJ:www.holdfast.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/1361_400_-_Native_Title_Update.pdf+kaurna+native+title&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a
  5. ^ http://oldsite.nntt.gov.au/cgi-bin/text_only/text_only.pl?conf=conf.xml&file=/applications/claimant/SC00_1.html Kaurna Peoples Native Title Claim
  6. ^ http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:182w1wr2PMUJ:www.holdfast.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/minutesAgendas/1361_400_-_Native_Title_Update.pdf+kaurna+native+title&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a NATIVE TITLE CLAIM - UPDATE 12 AUGUST 2003
  7. ^ http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1287940&l=1688a8b971&id=618637254 Photos from Government House Open Day
  8. ^ http://www.newsmaker.com.au/news/948 Kaurna Declare Sovereignty and $47.5 Million Dollar Bill for Marble Hill at SA Governor's Open House Day
  9. ^ http://cooberpedyregionaltimes.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/the-time-has-come-adelaides-first-people-the-kaurna-come-to-collect-their-rent-on-marble-hill/
  10. ^ Kaurna Native Title Custodian Ngangkiburka Georgina Yambo Williams
  11. ^ [http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1841726&l=d4204fd34d&id=618637254 Draft map only. Prepared by Land Services Group, Department of Administrative and Information Services Names as recorded by Norman B Tindale Kaur[n]a people and others with appropriate knowledge are invited to advise of any corrections or alterations to the names as shown. Please give any information to Ribgner Green, Manager of this Centre]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marble_Hill,_South_Australia/Archive_1&oldid=758644448"