Talk:Australian Aboriginal mythology

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to move all of these pages at once. —Mets501 (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following pages should to be moved following this consensus.

• Australian Aboriginal mythology → Indigenous Australian mythology
• Australian Aboriginal languages → Indigenous Australian languages
• Transcription of Australian Aboriginal languages → Transcription of Indigenous Australian languages
• Australian Aboriginal sign languages → Indigenous Australian sign languages
• Australian Aboriginal tribes → Indigenous Australian tribes
• Australian Aboriginal kinship → Indigenous Australian kinship
• Australian Aboriginal enumeration → Indigenous Australian enumeration
• Australian Aboriginal avoidance practices → Indigenous Australian avoidance practices
• List of English words of Australian Aboriginal origin → List of English words of Indigenous Australian origin
• List of Australian place names of Aboriginal origin → List of Australian place names of Indigenous origin

—Mets501 (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

[edit] Support

• Support Zarbat 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - it will require some reworking of the articles but we need a consistent usage. (I think Premier means he opposes). Adam 12:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support for reasons of consistency. Has a disambig page been considered as an option to address the A/TSI issue? Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 14:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support for pages that are not intended to focus solely on Australian Aborigines.--cj | talk 12:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, with proviso that if and where used "Indigenous Australians" is understood to include all of the indigenous peoples in Australia. There will be many topics where it will be valid to document at this collective level (eg Land Rights), while there will also be others where it will be better to restrict to only certain groups/cultures, or groups of cultures, such as the TSI peoples. Probably need to ask of each article before reassigning, "is this article's scope relevant to Australia's indigenous peoples collectively/in general, or (eg for languages) relevant to only some subset?" --cjllw | TALK 01:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support: There are two Wikipedia principles at play: Respect, and Recognizance. We should move the pages out of respect for the people and how they wish to be referred to, and we can afford to move the pages because people will have no trouble recognizing "Indigenous Australian" as what they may have called "Aboriginal" in the past. Hu 13:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

• Oppose I think if you move it all to Indigenous you imply that those practices also apply to Torres Strait Island peoples, who seem to generally get overlooked in the discussion of Indigenous Australians. While Aboriginal culture varies from langauge group to language group, it has some fairly basic consistencies, while Torres Strait Islander culture is substantially different, being a Melanesian culture more closely linked to PNG. 138.25.252.110 02:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Aren't decendants of the colonial poulation indigenous as well? Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia uses the term "Australian aborignals" on the website of the Royal Family. Her Majesty's preference for this term means something - under International Law all Australian citizens are her legal property. Premier 07:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You are confusing two different senses in which words like indigenous are used. One is the common, everyday adjectival sense meaning simply "born in, local to" (your meaning), while the other is the more formal and particular sense whose practical interpretation is more specialised and restrictive, and associated with identity and collective rights as indigenous peoples (see article). This latter sense is very widely recognised for eg. in national/international laws, regulations and treaties across the globe, and is only tangentially-related to the common adjectival definition. If in any further doubt that such distinctions in meaning are valid and are observed, peruse the UN's PFII website or any of hundreds of others which deal with the concept. I don't really see that there's any particular danger that an article entitled Indigenous Australian X could be confused with the former, or not readily understood to be concerned with the latter, of these two meanings.--cjllw | TALK 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per scope problems. AFAICT all those articles refer only to the mainland Aborigins, as opposed to Torres Strait Islanders. Merging these topics (appropriate TSI articles don't exist yet?) would obviously be silly, as the two groups are fairly distinct in most aspects. The "Indigenous" should be preserved only where they're referred to commonly, such as in politic issues. Duja► 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per scope problems. Andrewa 16:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as the scope is different, like relabelling Inuit to Native American everywhere. A potentially better solution might be to split "Australian Aboriginal..." into multiple articles in some cases, if we can find appropriate reliable references to identify the boundaries. "Mythology" appears to already be a redirect, but does not even mention in passing Torres Strait Islanders. "Languages" is also a redirect, but the article doesn't reference Torres Strait Island languages. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

These can't be dealt with en bloc. The main page, Indigenous Australians, covers all the indigenous peoples of Australia, including Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders (and thus is properly located at that title). Some of these child articles however are only about Aboriginal Australians; Australian Aboriginal languages for example is distinct from Torres Strait Island languages. --bainer (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm looking at this article, and it looks like it's about all Indigenous Australians, not just the Aborigines. As for the languages, it looks like they can be grouped together under "Australian languages" or "Indigenous Australian languages". But let's see how things work out. I'm open to removing the language move for now if it's going to be problematic. Zarbat 03:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

All the pages mooted for moving deal specifically with Aborigines and don't mention Torres Strait Island culture as far as I can see. Perhaps separate Torres Strait Island culture pages could be created in the future to correspond with these? I don't think changing to Indigenous does Torres Strait Island people and culture justice. For example, I don't know about TSI kinship, but I don't think they have skin system in the way Aboriginal groups do. DRyan 09:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A problem seems to be that the links here direct at "Indigenous Australian ..." but then redirect to "Australian Aboriginal ...". There seems to be some sort of a confusion as to whether the two groups (Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders) should be treated seperately or lumped together as "Indigenous Australians". The other move here seems to be passing pretty smoothly, so I don't really know what to think now. I guess it's better to do this on a case-by-case basis, but I don't really have the time, so I'm just going to accept the outcome of this survey. Zarbat 10:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be the case that we end up with some moving that are fairly uncontroversial or can be easily fixed to be entirely inclusive, while others will end up disambiguated so that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customs/traditions/etc can be addressed in separate articles in cases where a notable article can be written about each fork in the divide. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 18:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The consensus quoted by the proposer doesn't seem to me to support this proposal. Andrewa 16:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well it's good to know what people actually think. It wouldn't have been possible without this poll. Zarbat 11:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support per Cyberjunkie, as the ones which are intended to include TSI shoudl be moved. However, I think at least half of them are intended to be more specific, particularly those related to languages. Why have they already been moved? JPD (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was, the proposer cited this previous discussion as a consensus supporting these multiple moves, and I don't think it does. Andrewa 02:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I couldn't find a consensus to support this at that link, either. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the proposer and I thought that there would be a consensus to move these pages based on that previous discussion. If you look carefully, most people who opposed that previous move are supporting this move. In any case what I meant to say was that this is just a proposal and no one assumed there would be a consensus (or we would have moved the pages without even discussing anything). But in any case it's good to know what people are thinking - in case someone want to propose any moves in the future. Zarbat 13:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear things up, I'm really indifferent about this, and could care less what the articles are called. This nomination was purely on behalf of Zarbat because he/she was not sure exactly how to go about requesting a move. —Mets501 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Commendable! Considering how much heat this sort of naming issue generates here in Australia, this whole process has been remarkably civilised IMO. Either way, a win for Wikipedia. Andrewa 01:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

To me the meaning of Aboriginal and Indigenous are very similar and dont propose a seriotype, they both refer to the native inhabitance or species of an area. Enlil Ninlil 12:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• The issue here has more to do with the scope of the terms, not their meaning. Zarbat 09:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not create three articles: Australian Aboriginies, Torres Strait Islanders and Indigenous Australians.

The latter article could explain the term is taken to mean both groups and is controversial.

To see what I mean look at the article for British Isles.

124.184.172.177 15:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The term Australian Aborigines was once widely used but is now largely avoided, and is regarded as offensive by many aboriginal Australians. It should be used as a redirect only IMO, with a note to this effect in the article intro. Andrewa 04:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Further comment: The term aboriginal is inoffensive, both as a noun and as an adjective, although aboriginal Australian is preferred as a noun phrase. It's only Aborigine in its various forms that's a problem AFAIK. No change of vote (see above under oppose). Andrewa 18:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

236 years after Captain Cook made his proclamation on Possession Island there are some descendants of the colonial population who would advance the argument that they are indigenous to Australia too.

124.184.172.177 10:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, any such descendant (or indeed, any individual born in AU) would be quite at liberty to describe themselves as "indigenous to Australia". However, this does not alter the fact that the nominal phrase "Indigenous Australians" has a particular and well-defined separate meaning as well, as a collective term for the indigenous peoples in Australia per the sense of this present article. The two levels of meanings here are not mutually exclusive, and there should be no grounds for confusion; it's irrelevant.--cjllw | TALK 23:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So why cant we put this at the top of the article then:

The term "Indigenous Australian" can be confusing and is objectionable to some people in Australia.

124.184.172.177 03:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not confusing and it's not objectionable. The phrase "Indigenous Australians" has a definite and distinct meaning, namely the indigenous peoples of Australia. Any person born in Australia might like to call themselves indigenous, but they would be misusing the word. In this context, "indigenous" has the sense of something autochthonous or endemic (as opposed to something innate or intrinsic), and using it to describe any people other than the indigenous peoples of Australia, or as you like to call them, "people of colour", demonstrates an incomprehension of the English language. --bainer (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that is language, meanings change and so do words, Im talking about the word Aboriginal which is only offensive in certain context, it is still regularily used as a classification, like the term european or asia. Enlil Ninlil 04:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, (and at the risk of repeating myself,) I have never heard anyone object to the term aboriginal, in fact it is a source of great pride to many to be aboriginal. It is aborigine that is offensive in some contexts. Frankly I do not understand why this is so, or exactly which contexts these are, but it's taken very seriously by some of those to whom the term is applied, and I'm guessing it is to do with past hurts, of which there are many. In response to this sensitivity, Australian government agencies, church groups and many others now use the term aboriginal rather than aborigine, and I strongly recommend it. No change of vote. Andrewa 14:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A majority of people who identify themselves as Aborignals in the census are part bloods anyway.

124.184.172.177 09:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.