Talk:Saibai Island

removal of unreferenced information of dubious quality

This article is tagged as having been unreferenced since January 2008. Much of the anthropological "information" could only be found in other online places where they are derived from Wikipedia. This means that whether it is true or not, it has become "well known". As such, I have reduced the length of the article significantly.

Anybody adding material based on online sources should be careful that they are not just putting back material that originated in this unsourced article. Topics to be wary of include

• great enemies being traditionally the Kupamal and Thugeral
• the "sacred Adhibuya stone"
• Zaman Wislin cult

--Scott Davis ^Talk 02:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually logged into my long-dormant Wikipedia account to make a comment along the same lines as this. I was reading the article and the name of one of the native groups mentioned, “Cassomwary Clan”, struck me as potentially a typo, given the orthographic proximity between the first word and the word “Cassowary”. The latter is a type of bird found in the very same part of the world that the article deals with, i.e. the northern tip of Australia and the southern tip of Papua New Guinea. I googled the term “Cassomwary Clan”, and the only results seem to either directly parrot the exact text of the Wikipedia article, or at least suggest it as a source. I’m not an expert but I reckon it’d be good to get someone who works in this particular anthropological field to comment. Imcintosh (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency about British/Queensland Boundary Adjustments

The article currently says:

"Letters Patent were issued by the British government in 1872 creating a new boundary for the colony which encompassed all islands within a 60 nautical mile radius of the coast of Queensland. This boundary was further extended to 96 kilometres (60 mi) by the Queensland Coast Islands Act 1879 (Qld) and included the islands of Boigu, Darnley, Murray and Saibai, which lay beyond the previous 60 nautical mile limit."

This is inconsistent, because 96 kilometers (and 60 statute miles) are less than 60 nautical miles, and "miles" without qualification normally means statute miles. It's possible that the intended meaning is that the nautical mile limit was left unchanged, but that Boigu, Darnley, Murray and Saibai (which lie beyond the boundary) were added. If so, it would be simpler to just say that "Boigu, Darnley, Murray and Saibai (which lie beyond the original boundary) were added by the Queensland Coast Islands Act 1879 (Qld)."

It's also possible that the intended meaning is that the boundary was reduced to 60 statute miles from the coast, but that Boigu, Darnley, Murray and Saibai were added. Or maybe there is some other possible interpretation. I have no idea, and can't easily get the cited materials to check. It would be good if the original author could clarify. Urilarim (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)