Talk:Swagman

Perhaps 'Swaggies' and 'Sundowners' should be automatically redirected to the 'Swagman' page?124.178.240.197 09:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Definitely needs work. "...we'd like to think..." etc. Who's 'we?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.132.121 (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I dispute that this is a New Zealand term. It's Australian only - There are nothing cited on the article that backs up the idea that this word was ever common in New Zealand. 202.78.240.7 (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

A bit less disputing and a bit more Google searching might be more productive. I've now added citations to sources for both Australian and New Zealand usage. --Avenue (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is it appropriate to call it a New Zealand term? It is of Australian origin and seems to be a far greater part of Australian folklore and related vocab than in NZ. A google search of 'new zealand dictionary swagman' brings up hits mostly relating to the term's usage in Australia. I guess a rough equivalent would be hobo: recognized as an American term, but it's also used in Canada. - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the term originated in Australia, and it's appropriate to note that in the article. That doesn't mean it's not a New Zealand term. If terms of Australian, British, Maori, etc origin were ruled out, NZ English would have an extremely limited vocabulary. Looking at dictionaries, I believe Oxford Dictionaries are generally considered reliable, and they have it listed as both Australian and New Zealand.[1] If you like analogies, I think bludger, cocky, tucker, and so on are closer. --Avenue (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

"The numbers of swagmen have declined over the 20th century but still rising in times of economic depression. Although some say they were still common in some areas up to the late 1970s, however today, it is rare to find the type of character that will take on the challenges of the lifestyle. There is little doubt that the humble swagman will remain a romantic icon of Australian history and folklore."

I'm not from Australia, so I don't know if there's still a signficant population of migrant workers roaming around in spiffy hats, but I do have a bit of an issue with this paragraph.

"It's rare to find the type of character" is not very exact or clear about swagmen today, and doesn't really add anything to the page.

Actually, with phrases like "Some say" (Who says?), and "There is little doubt" (Why?), this whole paragraph is basically filler, although it could be edited to be more constructive.

Of course, that could just be me, which is why I didn't just make the edit. Any thoughts? 74.10.242.204 (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Removed "Although some say they were still common in some areas up to the late 1970s, however today, it is rare to find the type of character that will take on the challenges of the lifestyle. There is little doubt that the humble ", leaving "The numbers of swagmen have declined over the 20th century but still rising in times of economic depression. Swagman remain a romantic icon of Australian history and folklore." 74.10.242.204 (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to say that itinerant farm workers go back hundreds of years and were very common well into the 20th century before the mechanisation of farm work. With so much of that work seasonal it made for a large mobile workforce. A lifestyle carried over from the UK - look at hop picking in Kent or another - and cherry picking. It pains me to see swagmen equated as just vagabonds or hobos - though before the aged pension some would be regarded nowadays as 'past retirement age'. Of course they've been wrapped in a thick layer of romantic myth - not that I think it's all that bad. But even in Banjo Paterson's day there was controversy about that depiction - like his famous exchange with Henry Lawson in The Bulletin. Itinerant rural workers are still out there in droves - they just no longer get around ON FOOT. They've morphed into fruit pickers & packpackers in those weirdly painted vans. Shearers too - though to walk into a pub where they drink and say they're all wearing "spiffy hats" - good luck.
"Though the bush has been romantic and it's nice to sing about,
There's a lot of patriotism that the land could do without"
- Henry Lawson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.41.96 (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It saddens me to see User HappyWaldo seemingly treat an article like his personal territory, and repeatedly delete other people's contributions without any hint of a (requested) discussion over the matter. Please, nobody is questioning your expertise in the matter, but Wikipedia *IS* all about cross-references of related topics! Ever heard of "orphan articles" needing more internal links, hmm? Please check the Bogeyman article before unilaterally decreeing that there is absolutely no relevance of the eponymous videogame to the Swagman theme. The scary shaggy "Bag Man" is a classic myth in half of the world, and myth appearances in popular culture ARE relevant.

In fact, so is the stereotype of the witch hunt against vagrants when a heinous crime is committed... The thoughtless popular equation "Swagman" = "Bogeyman" may not be worth stating by itself here (then again... perhaps it is?), but its components are significant encyclopedic material.

This is not about barging in and droning on one's pet topics (such as videogames from a geeky buff) while damaging the quality of a serious Wikipedia article ; it's about everyone who can, pitching in with their own relevant knowledge to improve and expand every possible article, according to encyclopedic standards. I trust this issue can be addressed according to the Wikipedian rules of mutual respect and proper behavior between contributors. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll stop reverting your edit when you include a reliable third party source that verifies the video game character you keep adding is related to or inspired by the Australian/New Zealand swagman. From your description it seems highly unlikely that it is. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

First of all, the way you do things is really not fitting of etiquette. You're way too abrupt, mister. You've deleted three times now, BEFORE discussing and reaching any adult agreement on the issue, that's not the proper way to behave on Wikipedia and I'm sure you know it. "Has nothing to do with subject of article" is not an objective and final argument, it's a single individual's personal opinion. What gives you the privilege to casually decree my position as worth any less than yours? I sense and can understand that this [fascinating] article feels like your pet project because you know so much about the specific topic, but now that's unilateralism and frankly uncivil behavior, the way you act with others and patronize them. Do you think perhaps that I spend my holidays inserting shaky nonsense on the website I most respect? Couldn't you at least let the discussion happen before amputating AGAIN? That's cold, man. Really. Third time broke the charm.

Where ELSE could the videogame's title come from? Come on! It's not like there's a big disambiguation page for "Swagman". And why do you only NOW mention that you wish to see a reference? Unlike you, I've checked the entire article carefully before pointing out the blatant relationship between the etymology of the word, the Bogeyman etymology + mythos, and the videogame about a bogeyman called the Swagman. Have you even cast a glance on MY reference? You didn't even try to call my edit OR, you just went snip-snip and then were on your way. Way to insult someone whose very specialty is cultural cross-references! We each have our strong suits. Did I ever belittle yours?

As for the imperfect writing style, why don't you see it as a tacit open invitation to rephrase the stuff better, if you're experienced enough? Is your only envisionable attitude to scratch out with red ink anything that wasn't accomplished by Professor you? Why all the hostility, people? Wife burnt dinner tonight?

I'll be perfectly straight with you: I don't "play ego" and make it a personal matter that my edits become engraved in marble stone. My only care is to contribute to the Knowledge, to add perspective, because everyone can have something unique to bring. I'm only defending this edit because I've given it a lot of thought, FYI. A lot more thought than you have, every time you diss the work of someone whom you know nothing about and don't care to find out by talking with them.

If you don't do the effort of showing better Wikipedia spirit, this is what might very well happen in the end: the need for higher arbitration, a complete blocking of this article, and the end of your dedicated, constant efforts to make this article as good as it deserves to be. Isn't diplomacy far better than any [edit] war, hunh? So, here's what I suggest as an outreached hand, between fellow contributors: you kindly restore that section, as a temporary state for the article and a gesture of goodwill, and then we discuss it like two educated and sensible grown-ups, possibly leading to fascinating new horizons. What say ye, mate? "Peace?" Issar El-Aksab (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have read a handful of game reviews, mostly on messageboards, and can't see how the video game character Swagman relates to the itinerant worker swagman (or how bogeymen are similar to swagmen. The yowie, bunyip and other creatures of Australian folklore have much more in common with the traditional bogeymen than Austalian hobos...). It's possible that the video game character got its name from the verb swag meaning to "walk with a bold, arrogant, or lordly stride; strut, lurch or sway", but I can't verify that because the game doesn't have its own website and I can't find any mention of the game in online media. The Australian swagman is very culturally self-contained and appears regularly in historical Australian literature and painting, so a cross-cultural reference in something like a modern day videogame would be very interesting and notable, but I just can't see the connection here (would love to be proven wrong though). Sorry for reverting your edits without discussing the issue, contrary to the name I haven't been in the best of moods. - HappyWaldo (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hooray!74.10.242.204 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply