Talk:Ngambri

message: I have added some of this information back into the article. Please feel free to edit the article further. -- Astrokey44|talk 02:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inserted info

message: The recently inserted first paragraph of the article says "Ngambri was ... a locality ... The area ... ", ie it defines and describes an area of land, however much of the rest of the article (including the infobox) is about the people.  Is the article about the land, or the people, or both? The lead section should be a littler clearer on this - in particular the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised this was never fixed, will give it a go. Poketama (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it up but there's a lot of dubious (citation needed) information in there because this is quite a complicated topic and I don't have time or knowledge to vet it. Poketama (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  is the article about the locality or the people 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ngambri. 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  tag to http://www.tams.act.gov.au/parks-recreation/caring_for_ngunnawal_country/importance_of_plants_to_aboriginal_people
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403124504/http://www.postcourier.com.pg/20090807/pacific04.htm to http://www.postcourier.com.pg/20090807/pacific04.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130627222848/http://www.nntt.gov.au/Applications-And-Determinations/Search-Determinations/Pages/NSW_-_Native_title_determination_summary_-_Ngambri_Local_Aboriginal_Land_Council_2.aspx to http://www.nntt.gov.au/Applications-And-Determinations/Search-Determinations/Pages/NSW_-_Native_title_determination_summary_-_Ngambri_Local_Aboriginal_Land_Council_2.aspx
*Added  tag to http://www.nntt.gov.au/Applications-And-Determinations/Search-Determinations/Pages/NSW_-_Native_title_determination_summary_-_Ngambri_Local_Aboriginal_Land_Council_3.aspx
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) 06:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: This article is confused because it seeks to established at the outset a distinct people whose independent historicity is not ascertain(able). It is caught up in the crossfire between imprecise historic data and the various hypotheses generated, and the recent land claims of several families Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not trustworthy 

message: I understand that this issue is very contested. Just thought I would share this newest information of the ACT government apologising for excluding Ngambri people. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-27/act-government-apologises-to-ngambri-over-indigenous-protocol/102274536 Poketama (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government acknowledgement of Ngambri 

message: I don't think its necessary to go into so much detail about the contested land claims in the introduction. It is not general information and only introduces a single segment of the page. Yainsley (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that it's necessary to make both Ngunnawal and Ngambri pages describe each people in a similar fashion to other pages for indigenous groups -- i.e. with much less focus on the land dispute. There would be a section on each page regarding the dispute, briefly describing and linking to separate page dedicated to it. I think it is important that Wikipedia does not present biased views for either side and thus drive further this conflict. @Laterthanyouthink, @Poketama, @Nishidani, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Yainsley (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be dialed back a bit. Poketama (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that some of the detail could come out of the lead of this one, and that the issue should be covered the Ngunnawal article in similar fashion, for consistency. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary information in introduction