Talk:Eora

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Sydney / Indigenous peoples Mid‑importance Eora is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070205102554/http://www.livingharbour.net:80/aboriginal/index.cfm to http://www.livingharbour.net/aboriginal/index.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pemulwuy is described as an Eora man. If that is correct, surely he should be mentioned here. Wikiain (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was Bidjigal, a clan of the Darug or Eora.Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed most of this as original research. It has some links which may be useful. If any one can document elements here for re-inclusion, by all means.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Guringai North

• Terramerragal
• Cammeraigal
• Carigal
• Cannalgal
• Gorualgal
• Kayimai

2.Dharug (Eora)

• Gadigal Sydney
• Wangal Concord
• Burramattagal Parramatta
• Wallumettagal Ryde
• Muru-ora-dial Maroubra
• Kameygal Botany Bay
• Birrabirragal Sydney Harbour

2.Dharug West

• Borogegal-Yuruey Bradleys Head
• Bediagal North of Georges River
• Bidjigal Castle Hill
• Toogagal Toongabbie
• Cabrogal Cabramatta
• Boorooberongal Richmond
• Cannemegal Prospect
• Gomerigal-tongara South Creek?
• Muringong Camden
• Cattai Windsor
• Kurrajong Kurrajong
• Boo-bain-ora Wentworthville
• Mulgoa Penrith

4. Dharawal South

• Gweagal
• Norongerragal
• Illawarra
• Threawal
• Tagary
• Wandeandegal

The traditional territory of the Wanegal people begins around Goat Island and runs west past Concord to what is now called Parramatta, and includes parts of Lane Cove River.^[1]

Why is this list on the talk page? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. Having just spotted the above list, with no clue as to what it's doing on the talk page, perhaps someone could follow this up? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robw49 has sought to include a section on the the "treatment of women" in the article. I have no problem with that suggestion per se, but it needs to be done in a way that is in keeping with both the current style of the article, and wikipedia's guidelines on original research and secondary sources, rather than including quotes from contemporaneous sources with no context or integration. I am starting a discussion here in hopes that constructive suggestions can be made and we can work together on what might be appropriate. Melcous (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]