User talk:RayNorris
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] NOTES:
- I HAVE CHANGED MY WIKIPEDIA NAME from Rayd8 to RayNorris. Apologies if this causes any confusion.
- If you wish to leave a message for me here, please do so at the BOTTOM of the page. Thanks.
[edit] Aboriginal Art
Ray, welcome to the page. Thanks for fixing the subheadings. It looks more ordered. At least I'm not the only one keeping up the fort on this page. We have a couple of vandals around so please keep a vigilant watch for them. The page looks very substantial now and for such an important issue, deservedly so. 124.168.199.7 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Just saw your Aboriginal astronomy page. I've also contributed to the Seven Sisters mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_sisters - Pleaides so you might want to incorporate that. I have a painting by Gabriella Possum on the Seven Sisters and am happy to contribute that image (though the copyright remains with her).
- Thanks for the comments. Yes I'll put a link into that from the aboriginal astronomy page. But do you really mean the Morning Star in Orion's belt? Normally the Morning Star refers to Venus. RayNorris 04:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've not read Venus/Morning Star being referred to as the man chasing the 7 sisters but if that is canon then I'm not complaining since I am less interested in the science and more into the myth.
[edit] Jesus as a Myth
I think if you used that description in a prominent place you'd find there are quite a few more christians editing here than indigenous australians! Jesus as myth suggests it's a skeptical description, but the main difference I suspect is that there is a fair amount of historical evidence that Jesus the person existed. But, as an atheist too, I can't bring myself to wade through all the articles and further reading at Jesus --Steve (Slf67) talk 04:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment Steve. I suspect you're right. But I meant it as a litmus test. If called Jesus a "myth" is unacceptable to Christians, then calling Baiame (or whoever) a myth will be unacceptable to Indigenous Australians.Rayd8 | User talk:Rayd8 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Mythology gives two meanings though. "Stories linked to the spiritual or religious life in the oral tradition of a particular culture, of deep cultural or spiritual significance", shouldn't be confused with "a rumour, misconception or mistaken belief" --Steve (Slf67) talk 04:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Its all a great idea
I have noted your proposals for the Indigenous australian issues on the australia project talk page - but my university level australian anthropology education leaves me in apoplexy after reading most of the talk page discussions and i find it better to stay out of the conversations lest i aggravate or offend. What concerns me with the current state of wikipedia - is not so much your proposals (and most they do seem indeed sensible) is the capacity for a single crazy red link to drive genuine editors out of their brains while trying to push an agenda (which is what consumed about the last 3 months at the main IA article) - so for me - it is not the subject as the mechanics - (and I am not buying into worldtravellers rubbish as he displayed to me a complete ignorance and over-reliance on spurious sources for an indonesian volcano :) ) of what would be not troll/vandal attracting measures - and certain subject/article titles are indeed an issue when attracting the flies to the meat... even more so if you are indeed struggling with others over the differences and appropriateness of the use of terminology - such as mythology, etc. I would strongly suggest resolution from as wide as possible credible editors before venturing down some roads... SatuSuro 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, aboriginal beliefs (I have done stuff in java where I did work with local beliefs - I use a category there -indonesian folklore - but even thats loaded... ) I really thing aboriginal religious beliefs or aboriginal beliefs is the way to go - from what I have see in other parts of wikipedia. (Hey I used to work at Fisher LIbrary at Uni of Syd - trust you can still breathe over there - it was pretty grimy last century :) !) cheers SatuSuro 02:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Clarification/appreciation
Some really nice work by yourself. I just wanted to clarify my position on comparisons. It was a bit of a knee jerk reaction from me. I don't think there was a problem on the page, it gives a valid context, and your comparison would help the reader. I've encountered anglocentric comparisons before, from the simply narrow to the completely batty, and I now have a bit of an allergic reaction to them.
I have never given much thought to indigenous astronomy until now, I will keep a watch for anything relating to this subject. A very interesting page. I imagine, for a couple of reasons, that this is more prevalent in the north and in more arid climes. Nyungar seasons, in contrast, seem to have be determined by distinct weather patterns and biological clues. These happen when they happen and are not determined by sidereal(term?) time. 'Dark sparklers', what a beautiful name, I'll be looking at that site later today. But the wagyl has just brought some rain, I had better go and thank her. Best regards - Fred 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nouns
Hello again, do you have citations for your contention that aborigine as a noun is "widely offensive". Henry Reynolds, not someone given to being offensive ignorant or insensitive, uses the term freely. I have seen some debate over this, and the articles here seem consistent. It just conflicts with the literature I have seen and the 'people' I have spoken too. Any term for aboriginal people can become offensive, given the prevailing view of our history. Some, like 'black', are reclaimed. Interested to hear your thoughts. Regards, - Fred 10:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Fred. Fair question.
First, I agree that it was widely used in the pre-2000 literature. I don't think you'll find it used in any culturally-sensitive work after around them, when it began to acquire this offensive connotation. I've been reprimanded a couple of times by knowledgable people like Land Councils when I've inadvertently used it myself, which is why I'm now rather sensitive to it.
We did actually have a discussion on this about a year ago, after which the word "aborigine" was expunged, but I see it's crept back in, so I was just doing a tidy-up, not making a political statement!
Can I give an authoritative refernce which defines what is OK and what is not OK? Well, how about the UNSW guide which says "Some indigenous people of Australia object to being labelled "Aborigines" - a term imposed on them by the first British colonisers, which also refers to any indigenous people in the world." RayNorris 11:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will make the assumption that we both have good faith on this issue. Firstly, I will point out that I rarely need to use the terms. People is usually sufficient, indigenous australians otherwise. I suspect the foundation for objections to the (lower or upper case) noun 'Aborigine' is that it 'homogenises' diverse people and their communities with a single name. A justifiable objection in my view. This is indicated on the site supplied by you, as "Some people prefer to be known by their specific regional names," and also states that others do not when capitalised. BTW, I have one of your images on my userr page now, cheers. - Fred 11:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redirects
There is no space between the # and REDIRECT. I fixed a couple for you. --Steve (Slf67) talk 08:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Raymattja Marika
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Raymattja Marika article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."
You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
