Talk:Bedford, Western Australia

Untitled

Hey all, I'm the WikiProject Cities assessor of this article. If feedback is what you want and need, come to my talk page and give me a holler! --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 17:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

... have belonged ...

Re these edits [1][2] ... "have belonged" is correct, both factually and grammatically. The use of "have" includes the present. Examples:

• I have edited Wikipedia for many years - and still do.
• You have studied for several years - and are still studying (according to User:HSIEteacher).
• Noongar people have belonged to the Bedford region for 50,000 years - and still do.

Contrast the above with these grammatically correct, but factually incorrect statements:

• I had edited Wikipedia for many years - but then stopped.
• You had studied - but then stopped studying when you graduated.
• Noongar people had belonged to the Bedford region for 50,000 years - but no longer do.

... and these sentences, grammatically incorrect because the verb tense (present tense) does not match the stated time frame (past):

• I edit Wikipedia several years ago.
• You study last year.
• Noongar people belong to the Bedford region for the past 50,000 years.

Mitch Ames (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think "have belonged" is an example of the universal perfect tense, "stating that a given situation has been going on continuously during a period leading up to the present time", and/or present perfect, which may "refer to an ongoing state ... particularly in saying for how long, or since when, something is the case. For example, ... I have lived in Paris for five years".

An alternative would be the present perfect progressive/continuous: "the Noongar have been living ... for 50,000 years". This has the advantage of the more obvious present tense "living", but it depends on whether you prefer "belonging" vs "living" - "have been belonging to the region" might be grammatically correct but is harder to parse. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

RE: Guidelines and Protocols for Appropriate Terminologies for Indigenous Australian content:

Hi Mr Ames,

There is an issue with grammar, but also colonial ways of thinking. For example, writing these sentences about timeframes may not make sense to you, but in Aboriginal ways of thinking-- time was then, time was now, time is the future. So sometimes saying they belong, and that they have been here since 50,000 years ago, can be correct. But if the only way to have it make sense is to say "have belonged", it would be preferred to write it in a more active, present way. Eg For 50,000 years, there has been a local Aboriginal group belonging to this region. This local Aboriginal group are the Noongar peoples.

Flinders University and AIATSIS both have their own guides for how to appropriately refer to Indigenous-Australian topics. I recommend viewing the Flinder's University guideline. Although it could be regarded 'universal' phrasing; it's not 'universal' when we are discussing Aboriginal history, cultures, and people (see the rationale in either of the guidelines). It used to be more acceptable to view and regard Aboriginal groups like that, however, the standards are changing and protocols are being established. I'm hoping to modernise the language and terminology to the ethical and appropriate forms in these articles.

In your example sentences, you have said you do regard Aboriginal groups as present via the "and still do" ... but evidently, your phrasing in these articles hasn't included the end "and still do" or even a "continue to". It's perfectly fine to then say they "have belonged", so long as you also include the "still do". It would be appropriate for these Indigenous groups to be referred to as both within the articles. Aboriginal groups are not extinct or in the past. We need to make that clear, very carefully, through our choice of language. Aboriginal peoples continue to live on today (without self-determination due to the colonial rule, but that's for a separate discussion). The examples in the Indigenous-Australian articles I've been trying to change haven't regarded Aboriginal groups or people as existing in the present. I am hoping that will be surely modified.

Other useful guides written by authoritative bodies and with the collaboration of Indigenous groups are: Narragunnawali, and Australians Together. I think the Flinders copy may be the most useful to understand past/present issues, though. It's recently been updated, which is always preferred when following a guideline for terminologies. This could also help clarify why it's typically more appropriate to regard Aboriginal groups as the "peoples", not "people". These guides help explain a lot as to why it's so finicky for content about Indigenous peoples. Please let me know if you're going by another guideline/protocol that's been approved by Aboriginal contributors and authorial groups (such as governments) -- I haven't seen a specific one for Western Australian (or Perth) contents yet, though I hope one has been developed somewhere (by a local uni or council perhaps?). HSIEteacher (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Some general points:

• The article is written in English, so English grammar rules apply.
• "universal perfect" is a term referring to a specific grammatical construct in English (defined in the linked article section), and is accurate for the purpose of discussing the grammar (independently of the article's subject), which is what I was doing.
• My examples were intended to demonstrate that in each case the part after the hyphen (in particular, "and still do") is redundant, because it is implied by the main part of the sentence.
• If there's a specific part of the guides you mentioned that applies to this particular issue - i.e., the terminology "have belonged" etc - could you please cite the specific document and section, and quote it.
  (If there are other problems with the wording, please use a separate heading to discuss them so that we can focus on each issue separately. Note that I have "removed" the subheading "RE: Guidelines..." (converted it to just bold format) because I think this ought not be a separate subsection - we are discussing the single primary issue of wording around "belong..." and a separate section unnecessarily risks splitting the discussion.)

To fix the issues of grammar, redundancy and explicit or implied grammatical tense, I suggest:

The local Aboriginal group, the Wadjuk Noongar people, belong to the Bedford region and have done for the past 50,000 years.

(Technically the leading "belong to..." is redundant, but it's less obviously so when presented first.)

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the editing, Mr Ames. I will eventually learn the way to do the indented replies soon. English grammar does apply; but it's almost like a Venn Diagram for compromise, because the content is about Indigenous matters. I like the final example. I can see the difference in your intent of phrasing "have" and "had" much clearer now. HSIEteacher (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Article updated accordingly. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bedford, Western Australia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Prosesize is only 15kb, so room for expansion if needed :)

• As of 2021, the local group continue to pursue native title rights over the suburban region, including Bedford - worth expanding if any extra information is available.
  • This statement was written by another editor, and to me, sounds vague. Yes, there is land being transferred to traditional owners in the south-west, but not in Bedford. Steelkamp (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• It was decided that the housing commission did need to built shops - "build"?
  • Fixed, thanks. Steelkamp (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• The expanding population also caused the Catholic Church to establish a primary school on Wood Street in Bedford. A Catholic church was already existent in the suburb, and so St Peter's Primary School was constructed next to the church. - can be streamlined into 2 or 1 sentence
  • Simplified into 1 sentence. Steelkamp (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• By the early 1970s, the development of Bedford was complete, the last road being Gummery Street in the suburb's north - ok this is the last street, but not sure that holds for development as a whole....?
  • Changed to "major development". Steelkamp (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe the Name section should go further up the page...? Near establishment?
  • I've merged that section into other paragraphs. Steelkamp (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Nice work Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• The school moved down the street to a new site in 1942, that being its current site - why not just "The school moved down the street to its current site in 1942"
  • Done. Steelkamp (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks pretty comprehensive overall. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I have addressed each of your suggestions. Steelkamp (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

NB: earwigs copyvio is clear

• If possible, add when the trams stopped running down Beaufort St.
  • Done. Steelkamp (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• I guess - anything on most expensive residence sold (just thinking about giving as big a nudge as possible to FA-hood) - if no source nevermind...
  • I’ll have a look later. Steelkamp (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I've had a look, and couldn't find anything on this. Steelkamp (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing else newsworthy ever?
  • I’ll have a look later. Steelkamp (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • All I found was some news items on car crashes in Bedford, and this homicide from 2007 which I don't consider important enough to include in the article. Steelkamp (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for looking. Agree those items are not notable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - great, well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)