This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Squatters did not always become to be people of "high social prestige" as suggested by Iain Stuart. In this area (Gundagai) they were not well regarded by the Crown or even the ordinary worker at all because of some of their antics.
Money may have bought them 'high' social status but not necessarily prestige.
Many of the squatters were also dummies for so called landed gentry (not necessarily the leprauchan variety gentry).
The bunyip aristocracy or squattocray were from where the best known bunyip also is. jacqui —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.172 ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 1 June 2007
Interesting read! I think that this page would better be called Squatting (Nineteenth century Australia) or suchlike because it has been split off from Squatting which deals with the better known type of squatting ie occupation of empty buildings. I will leave it as a suggestion for now, since it is true that most of the latter squatting is urban. Mujinga ( talk) 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought I'd point out that the term squatter was also used in New Zealand. The Squatters Club, which later became the Dunedin Club, is an example. Schwede 66 10:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The article repeatedly refers to "runs" with no explanation of what they are. It would be good if somebody with knowledge of the term could explain it in the article. Kevin McE ( talk) 10:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Squatting is a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to squatting. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Everyone is welcome, from beginner to experienced editor. Feel free to pass by with suggestions. Let's get it going again! Mujinga ( talk) 18:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This article used to be called Squatting (pastoral) and is about the history of colonial squatting and the squattocracy in Australia. I don't think it's a good idea to have changed the name to Squatting (Australia) since at the moment the article is purely historical and does not include the information that is at Squatting#Sydney and Squatting#Melbourne. I am wondering what the best way forward is... the info at Squatting#Australia is approaching the size to spin it off into Squatting in Australia but then how to rename this page?
@ Kevin McE: you put a tag saying "The neutrality of this article is questioned because it may show systemic bias" - would it be possible to explain what your intention was? Because there's no discussion on talk and i'm a bit baffled. Would the perceived bias be removed if the article was renamed Australia's colonial squatting history for example? Mujinga ( talk) 18:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 08:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Squattocracy → Squatting (Australia) – Controversial undiscussed move that was incorrectly pitched as an uncontroversial request and has since been challenged by two editors: the "squattocracy" and "squatters" in general are not the same thing, and the former is an opinion term in any case. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 13:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Recently you [1] implemented an uncontrovesial move request. However, the user involved first rewrote a number of articles to remove distinctions that existed between a small number of articles and then renamed the articles, including requesting this "uncontroversial" move. There was no prior proposal to undertake this redefinition and renaming and I have explained now on Talk:Squatting in Australia why I don't agree. I do not know if the editor involved is familiar with Australia and squatting in Australia (a historical term with a quite particular meaning) so it may have been done in good faith, but certainly no time was allowed to establish if it was controversial. What is the appropriate way to unwind this and have a more open process where people get to have input on this. Thanks Kerry ( talk) 12:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
This page is developing a chequered history for name changes but i really don't think Squatting (Australia) works very well. Squatting (pastoral) was objected to above since it was seen as discussing a phenomenon which isn't specific to Australia, my suggestion of Squattocracy was shouted down by two people who have so far suggested: squatting (pastoral), squatter (pastoral) or squatter (Australian historical pastoral landholder). I suggested Squatting (Nineteenth century Australia) some time ago. None of these options seem very good. In any case now we have a situation in which there are two pages talking about different aspects of squatting in Australia, one called Squatting (Australia) and one called Squatting in Australia. My further thoughts on the matter are here, interested to hear what other people think, I've dropped a line to WikipediaProject:Australia. Probably best to continue the discussion here, because at least in my opinion this is the page that needs its name changing. Cheers! Mujinga ( talk) 09:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi @ ScottDavis:, I saw your recent edits and I also remember you were proposing Squatter (pastoral) as a page to describe the worldwide phenomenon which I though was a good idea. At the moment that page redirects here, which as others have already said isn't ideal since it makes the term peculiar to Australia. So I thought I'd ask what you think this page should be called. Regarding the taxonomy, in my opinion Squatting is the mother page, then there are daughters defined by country (eg Squatting in the United States, Squatting in England and Wales) or theme (eg Athens refugee squats), possibly Squatting (pastoral) would fit there. Then below that in the hierarchy we have movements, individual squats, squatters and squatting in literature and culture. So then the question is where does this page fit and how to name it. When we discussed this before, for some reason people blew in and blew out again and didn't seem to have read the discussion above on this page, leaving us with Squatting (Australia) and Squatting in Australia, which isn't optimal since they are very similar names. I would suggest Squatting (Australian history), what do you think? If we (and others) can settle on a new name, then it can be proposed. Mujinga ( talk) 10:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted
an edit by
194.193.130.179 (
talk) with the edit summary Reverted possible vandalism
. The reason I have reverted the edit is that it seeks to perpetuate the myths that Aboriginal people did not occupy the land, that Australia was unoccupied and that all land was owned by the crown. These myths, encapsulated by the phrase terra nullius, was emphatically rejected by the High Court in
Mabo. --
Find bruce (
talk) 01:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Squatting is an historical Australian term that referred to someone who occupied a large tract of land in Australia for the purposes of grazing livestock.
-- and the para below is a short version of terra nullius#Australia (but introducing the term Crown land)
Although Aboriginal Australians inhabited Australia for over 50,000 years before European settlement commenced in 1788, the colonial governments believed that Australia was Terra nullius at the time of settlement and that Indigenous Australians did not own the land they occupied but rather that the colonial governments possessed the land as Crown land and could sell or lease that land to settlers. [1] The belief in terra nullius persisted until 1992 when the High Court of Australia found in the case Mabo v Queensland (No 2) that the Mer people had owned their land prior to annexation by the colony of Queensland (1872–1879). [2] The ruling overturned the doctrine of terra nullius in Australia and had far-reaching significance for subsequent land claims of both Torres Strait Islanders and other Aboriginal Australians. [3]
-- then write the rest of the article in terms of Crown land as that is how the situation was understood by the government and settlers at that time
Your thoughts? Kerry ( talk) 04:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Although Aboriginal Australians inhabited Australia for over 50,000 years before European settlement commenced in 1788, the colonial governments decided/claimed/assumed [best word choice here??] that Australia was Terra nullius at the time of settlement and that Indigenous Australians did not own the land they occupied but rather that the colonial governments possessed the land as Crown land and could sell or lease that land to settlers. [1] As Indigenous Australians were the traditional owners of their lands, the arrival of settlers upon their land was often resisted leading to the frontier conflict. The justification of terra nullius persisted until 1992 when the High Court of Australia found in the case Mabo v Queensland (No 2) that the Mer people had owned their land prior to annexation by the colony of Queensland (1872–1879). [2] The ruling overturned the doctrine of terra nullius in Australia and had far-reaching significance for subsequent land claims of both Torres Strait Islanders and other Aboriginal Australians. [3]
I am trying to not overload this article with the broader issue of land ownership in Australia but to give enough of an introduction to the issues with appropriate links to the articles that do (or should) cover it in more depth. This article exists because we needed to link the term "squatter" from other articles, to explain what the term "squatter" means in the Australian colonial sense (as opposed to "settler" and " selector") but the article got re-oriented into contempory urban squatting issues and it's ended up a bit of a mess in the attempt to disentangle it. Kerry ( talk) 05:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Squatters did not always become to be people of "high social prestige" as suggested by Iain Stuart. In this area (Gundagai) they were not well regarded by the Crown or even the ordinary worker at all because of some of their antics.
Money may have bought them 'high' social status but not necessarily prestige.
Many of the squatters were also dummies for so called landed gentry (not necessarily the leprauchan variety gentry).
The bunyip aristocracy or squattocray were from where the best known bunyip also is. jacqui —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.172 ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 1 June 2007
Interesting read! I think that this page would better be called Squatting (Nineteenth century Australia) or suchlike because it has been split off from Squatting which deals with the better known type of squatting ie occupation of empty buildings. I will leave it as a suggestion for now, since it is true that most of the latter squatting is urban. Mujinga ( talk) 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought I'd point out that the term squatter was also used in New Zealand. The Squatters Club, which later became the Dunedin Club, is an example. Schwede 66 10:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The article repeatedly refers to "runs" with no explanation of what they are. It would be good if somebody with knowledge of the term could explain it in the article. Kevin McE ( talk) 10:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Squatting is a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to squatting. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Everyone is welcome, from beginner to experienced editor. Feel free to pass by with suggestions. Let's get it going again! Mujinga ( talk) 18:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This article used to be called Squatting (pastoral) and is about the history of colonial squatting and the squattocracy in Australia. I don't think it's a good idea to have changed the name to Squatting (Australia) since at the moment the article is purely historical and does not include the information that is at Squatting#Sydney and Squatting#Melbourne. I am wondering what the best way forward is... the info at Squatting#Australia is approaching the size to spin it off into Squatting in Australia but then how to rename this page?
@ Kevin McE: you put a tag saying "The neutrality of this article is questioned because it may show systemic bias" - would it be possible to explain what your intention was? Because there's no discussion on talk and i'm a bit baffled. Would the perceived bias be removed if the article was renamed Australia's colonial squatting history for example? Mujinga ( talk) 18:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 08:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Squattocracy → Squatting (Australia) – Controversial undiscussed move that was incorrectly pitched as an uncontroversial request and has since been challenged by two editors: the "squattocracy" and "squatters" in general are not the same thing, and the former is an opinion term in any case. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 13:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Recently you [1] implemented an uncontrovesial move request. However, the user involved first rewrote a number of articles to remove distinctions that existed between a small number of articles and then renamed the articles, including requesting this "uncontroversial" move. There was no prior proposal to undertake this redefinition and renaming and I have explained now on Talk:Squatting in Australia why I don't agree. I do not know if the editor involved is familiar with Australia and squatting in Australia (a historical term with a quite particular meaning) so it may have been done in good faith, but certainly no time was allowed to establish if it was controversial. What is the appropriate way to unwind this and have a more open process where people get to have input on this. Thanks Kerry ( talk) 12:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
This page is developing a chequered history for name changes but i really don't think Squatting (Australia) works very well. Squatting (pastoral) was objected to above since it was seen as discussing a phenomenon which isn't specific to Australia, my suggestion of Squattocracy was shouted down by two people who have so far suggested: squatting (pastoral), squatter (pastoral) or squatter (Australian historical pastoral landholder). I suggested Squatting (Nineteenth century Australia) some time ago. None of these options seem very good. In any case now we have a situation in which there are two pages talking about different aspects of squatting in Australia, one called Squatting (Australia) and one called Squatting in Australia. My further thoughts on the matter are here, interested to hear what other people think, I've dropped a line to WikipediaProject:Australia. Probably best to continue the discussion here, because at least in my opinion this is the page that needs its name changing. Cheers! Mujinga ( talk) 09:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi @ ScottDavis:, I saw your recent edits and I also remember you were proposing Squatter (pastoral) as a page to describe the worldwide phenomenon which I though was a good idea. At the moment that page redirects here, which as others have already said isn't ideal since it makes the term peculiar to Australia. So I thought I'd ask what you think this page should be called. Regarding the taxonomy, in my opinion Squatting is the mother page, then there are daughters defined by country (eg Squatting in the United States, Squatting in England and Wales) or theme (eg Athens refugee squats), possibly Squatting (pastoral) would fit there. Then below that in the hierarchy we have movements, individual squats, squatters and squatting in literature and culture. So then the question is where does this page fit and how to name it. When we discussed this before, for some reason people blew in and blew out again and didn't seem to have read the discussion above on this page, leaving us with Squatting (Australia) and Squatting in Australia, which isn't optimal since they are very similar names. I would suggest Squatting (Australian history), what do you think? If we (and others) can settle on a new name, then it can be proposed. Mujinga ( talk) 10:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted
an edit by
194.193.130.179 (
talk) with the edit summary Reverted possible vandalism
. The reason I have reverted the edit is that it seeks to perpetuate the myths that Aboriginal people did not occupy the land, that Australia was unoccupied and that all land was owned by the crown. These myths, encapsulated by the phrase terra nullius, was emphatically rejected by the High Court in
Mabo. --
Find bruce (
talk) 01:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Squatting is an historical Australian term that referred to someone who occupied a large tract of land in Australia for the purposes of grazing livestock.
-- and the para below is a short version of terra nullius#Australia (but introducing the term Crown land)
Although Aboriginal Australians inhabited Australia for over 50,000 years before European settlement commenced in 1788, the colonial governments believed that Australia was Terra nullius at the time of settlement and that Indigenous Australians did not own the land they occupied but rather that the colonial governments possessed the land as Crown land and could sell or lease that land to settlers. [1] The belief in terra nullius persisted until 1992 when the High Court of Australia found in the case Mabo v Queensland (No 2) that the Mer people had owned their land prior to annexation by the colony of Queensland (1872–1879). [2] The ruling overturned the doctrine of terra nullius in Australia and had far-reaching significance for subsequent land claims of both Torres Strait Islanders and other Aboriginal Australians. [3]
-- then write the rest of the article in terms of Crown land as that is how the situation was understood by the government and settlers at that time
Your thoughts? Kerry ( talk) 04:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Although Aboriginal Australians inhabited Australia for over 50,000 years before European settlement commenced in 1788, the colonial governments decided/claimed/assumed [best word choice here??] that Australia was Terra nullius at the time of settlement and that Indigenous Australians did not own the land they occupied but rather that the colonial governments possessed the land as Crown land and could sell or lease that land to settlers. [1] As Indigenous Australians were the traditional owners of their lands, the arrival of settlers upon their land was often resisted leading to the frontier conflict. The justification of terra nullius persisted until 1992 when the High Court of Australia found in the case Mabo v Queensland (No 2) that the Mer people had owned their land prior to annexation by the colony of Queensland (1872–1879). [2] The ruling overturned the doctrine of terra nullius in Australia and had far-reaching significance for subsequent land claims of both Torres Strait Islanders and other Aboriginal Australians. [3]
I am trying to not overload this article with the broader issue of land ownership in Australia but to give enough of an introduction to the issues with appropriate links to the articles that do (or should) cover it in more depth. This article exists because we needed to link the term "squatter" from other articles, to explain what the term "squatter" means in the Australian colonial sense (as opposed to "settler" and " selector") but the article got re-oriented into contempory urban squatting issues and it's ended up a bit of a mess in the attempt to disentangle it. Kerry ( talk) 05:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)