# Talk:Mount Osmond, South Australia

The article failed at FAC, right? Andjam 10:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed a reference to the Aboriginal inhabitants being 'Stone Age' Was this reference included by someone from 1800?

Can someone verify the walking trail section in regards to Long Ridge Track. My understanding is that Long Ridge track is on the other side of Waterfall Gully Road and nowhere near the SE Freeway. If no verifiable reference is given, next time I come by, I will remove references to Long Ridge Track. I think it is an error, perhaps the author thinks the Bullock Track has two names? (Michael, local resident)

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.147.173 (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 

I don't believe the statement about the Kaurna population of Adelaide belongs on this page (maybe Kaurna), but I didn't want to move it (or indeed delete it) straightaway, as I have not checked Amery.
Firstly, what's this "census"? Secondly, the ref apparently gives an 1852 population of 650, "steadily decreasing."
The Kaurna page gives an 1856 population (also referenced) of 180. The cited source is an e-book, but it gives an interesting table (see Chapter 1: The Kaurna), sourced as "Compiled by M. Moorhouse and extracted from the Appendix attached to The Legislative Council Select Committee, (1860) Report on the Aborigines, Paper 167, SA Govt Printer."  The table gives estimated (i.e., not census) populations year-by-year from 1841 to 1856. The figure of 650 apparently applies to 1841, with a "steady" attrition rate of about 30 per year.
Is someone in a position easily to check what Amery actually says? Pingku (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Whilst the Kaurna culture is no doubt notable and encyclopaedic, it's debatable whether it belongs in this article, or indeed any article about a specific place (though "Adelaide Plains" would probably warrant a mention). These SA place articles have frequently been used as coatracks to talk about all manner of Kaurna culture, whether or not it is directly applicable to the article. In this case, I think the fact that Mt Osmond is part of the Mount Lofty ranges, known to the Kaurna as Yurebilla, isn't a good reason to go off and talk about Kaurna dreaming stories and the decline of Kaurna culture after settlement. Thoughts? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I found a copy of Amery, and it was mis-cited here; he supports the 1941 date for a population of 650. I've deleted the sentence because it doesn't relate to Mount Osmond in any clear way. I also commented out the reference for Amery (although I can't really see how a book on Kaurna language will ever be useful here).
As to the rest, I think the language just needs to be tightened up to keep it on-topic. Something surely needs to be said about the Kaurna and their presence in the area, but equally obviously little that can be said about them will be specific to Mount Osmond, a place name meaningless to them. I think it is fine to comment that Mount Osmond is part of the Adelaide Hills (as far as the Kaurna are concerned) and therefore is part of the Nganno Dreaming. The connection with Yurrebilla is not so clear — unless the reserve in Mount Osmond is run as part of Yurrebilla?? Pingku (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I should have checked that ref - I just assumed it was good, when clearly it wasn't. Google Books should be my friend. :) That aside, I think something is worth mentioning, as general policy in Adelaide is to acknowledge the original owners in most formal publications, and all the histories (well, all four) discuss pre-European users and the Karuna people. How much they shoudl be discussed is a different issue. - Bilby (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm perfectly happy with maximising that sort of content, so long as it is seen to be relevant to the topic in hand.Pingku (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Just checked Adelaide Hills as well as Mount Lofty] - there's currently no mention of the dreaming stories at all. I think it would be more appropriate to move it to the "Adelaide Hills" page, since the story does not specifically concern Mt Osmond.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a new image. The one provided is: (1) copyrighted, (2) not salient to any aspect specific to Mount Osmond (it's just a pretty picture) and (3) was not even taken at Mount Osmond (the source website says it was taken at Waterfall Gully). Pingku (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The file containing the picture of goats is called "Osmond sheep.jpg". In the thumbnail it's hard to tell, but in the larger version they do look more like goats, at least to my untrained eye. :) In any case, "Osmond sheep" (or even "Osmond goats") is way ambiguous, given the global nature of Wikipedia. Pingku (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Mount Osmond, South Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001001209/http://esvc001353.wic010u.server-web.com/features/glen_osmond_mines.html to http://esvc001353.wic010u.server-web.com/features/glen_osmond_mines.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130055825/http://burnside.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=796 to http://www.burnside.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=796
Added archive https://archive.is/20121127093840/http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/archive/2006//results/polling503.htm to http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/archive/2006//results/polling503.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716022531/http://www.burnside.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=739 to http://www.burnside.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=739
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719164411/http://www.burnside.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=797 to http://www.burnside.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=797
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)