Talk:Gweagal

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gweagal. 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/20071010104946/http://www.nsw.nationaltrust.org.au/luggweagal.htm to http://www.nsw.nationaltrust.org.au/lugGWEAGAL.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829144205/http://www.mcguinnessonline.com/australia/aussie_people_aboriginals7.htm to http://www.mcguinnessonline.com/australia/aussie_people_aboriginals7.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901080759/http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/hot_science_topics/Botany_of_Botany_Bay/people/indigenous_people to http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/hot_science_topics/Botany_of_Botany_Bay/people/indigenous_people
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gweagal. 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/20080828125042/http://www.mcguinnessonline.com/australia/aussie_people_aboriginals3.htm to http://www.mcguinnessonline.com/australia/aussie_people_aboriginals3.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/pubs/short-history.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello all
I have added further information on the latest scholarly research which shows that the shield in the British Museum is not the so-called Gweagal Shield taken from Botany Bay in April 1770. Please see Thomas, Nicholas (2018). "A Case of Identity: The Artefacts of the 1770 Kamay (Botany Bay) Encounter". Australian Historical Studies. 49:1: 4–27 – via Taylor and Francis Online. Thomas concludes: "In particular, a closer assessment of the relevant evidence establishes that the shield exhibited in Canberra [ie the one on loan from the British Museum] is not the one taken from Gweagal in April 1770." p 10.
Happy to discuss--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gweagal Shield 

message: Hello all
I have removed two articles from the further reading section for the following reasons:
1) They repeat the now-discredited information that the shield held by the British Museum is the so-called Gweagal Shield
2) They both cover ground already well covered in the main article.
3) They are behind paywalls
4) They take a particular position on a controversial issue and can be considered advocacy.
The main article and the linked article in the Further reading section provide adequate coverage of the controversy over the Indigenous Australian shield held by the British Museum.
Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The provenance is not firmly established yet, so it is incorrect to cite one article as proof that it is not genuine. I am about to add a bit more to this bit. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks , after a bit of digging I see that this appears to be the case. It also led me onto a few massive sidetracks, but I'll re-check the wording here with fresh eyes shortly. The case is quite significant, kind of Australia's version of the Elgin Marbles, and will probably continue to be mentioned as similar ones come up in the future. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

text: , in your last edit, you have just repeated a citation which is already there (as ), so all you need to do is put the citation in the right place at the end of that sentence. Previous to that, my sentence about strengthening the museum's claim is representing Keenan's view, which is a legal one, and cited (and which you have left there, no longer supporting any content). She is saying that from the museum's point of view, Kelly's claim is weakened because it was based largely on Cooman being his ancestor, and hence claiming ownership. The whole issue of reclaiming artefacts of Indigenous history (cultural repatriation) is a broader one and somewhat of a battleground in many museums. I don't mind some of your tinkering with the wording - that's fine, apart from a couple of things. Firstly, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that it is a shield of the Gweagal people, and the museum has called it the Gweagal shield, so I would suggest that we carry on calling it that, perhaps lower-casing the word "shield" if you like. I deliberately put it in inverted commas because that is what it has been referred to throughout. Secondly, I don't know why you have removed the description of the Cook & Banks story, noted in their journals (and again, you have left the citation with no content). This is important background which explains the importance of the shield, as first claimed by the BM on its provenance labelling, and your changes have misrepresented the sources. I don't want to keep labouring the point on this article. I suspect that over time it will either have its own article or be written up in more detail in an article relating to cultural repatriation or decolonisation of musuems, and will be picked over again. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Sure, I don't have more time to spend on this and go through all of the sources again (and isn't one of them behind a paywall?). I will just mention though that in one of the sources there is a photo or transcription or link to the original BM description, which called it "Gweagal shield". (If I do ever get back to it, I'll cite here.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

text: p.s. Sorry, my mistake - it said "Bark Shield: This shield represents the moment of first contact between the British and Aboriginal Australians at Botany Bay in 1770. When James Cook and his men tried to land, two men of the Gweagal people came forward with spears...". Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: At the moment, there appears to be some overlap, confusion or muddied waters around how the Gweagal people fit into the Eora and Tharawal peoples. I don't have the time to dig deeper at the moment, but all three articles need some kind of clarification around the issue. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Gweagal's relationship with Eora & Tharawal groups