Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Proposed collaboration/sub-project[edit]

I note this 'project' is tagged as being under construction.

I'm not sure how Riana (talk) (who appears to have initiated this project) wishes others to contribute .. but I do wish to draw attention to discussion here recommending a project exactly like this!!

You'll see from the discussion that I have volunteered to start working on Aboriginal deities/ancestral beings/or mythical characters starting from North Queensland! You may also note that I have started upgrading the Australian Aboriginal mythology article, and have been very slowly working through North-East Queensland's geological and other topographical features documenting their original names and place within local indigenous cultural landscapes. I guess you can include me, and I'd like to sign up as a contributor to this proposed project?!

I'll watch!! Bruceanthro (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, please feel free to contribute in any way you feel is fit. I haven't started mapping out exactly how to cover topics but I should have a plan by the middle of this week :) Thanks very much for your interest and keep watching ;) ~ Riana 14:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Deities, gods, goddesses or not[edit]

There is plenty to think about at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 8#Category:Aboriginal goddesses. If some of the discussion there is correct, we should perhaps rename List of Australian Aboriginal deities. Do Aboriginal people have a concept of deities? --Bduke (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:To tackle the question first: 'Do Aboriginal people have deities?':
i. A very quick search of Wikipedia for Australian Aboriginal religion reveals there is no such article (to date), and the closest are the references within Indigenous Australians and Indigenous Australian culture to Australian Aboriginal belief systems.
ii. Australian Aboriginal deities (or Gods + Goddesses for that matter] without Australian Aboriginal religion or religious beliefs .. simply can not exist in life, and, arguably, can not properly exist as deities (or Gods + Goddesses) on Wikipedia
iii. perhaps this Wikiproject could start working up the necessary articles on Australain Aboriginal religion and/or Australian Aboriginal belief systems .. and, in doing so, we might all see whether any verificable deities [plus Gods & Goddesses] are so 'revealed' (or reveal themselves!!)
iv. a search of the Encyclopaedia of Aboriginal Australia shows NO ENTRIES for either the word Deity, or the words God/Goddess .. and the word religion takes the reader to an article which states, amongst other things:

"At a time when anthropology preferred to categorise belief systems, Aboriginal religion was assigned to a category designated as 'totemism' ... Aborigial totemism .. has a truly religious aspect, linking the physical world and its inhabitants with a transcendental dimension of reality ..

..The totemic ancestors, as conceived by Aboriginal people, are beings of great power who once travelled over the earth performing wonderful deeds of creation, and who now lie quiescent in focal points of the landscape ... Totemic ancestors are often referred to in Aboriginal English as Dreamings .."

:To next tackle the suggestion List of Australian Aboriginal deities be renamed:
v. The List of Australian Aboriginal deities is a useful list of articles for this project to work through (even if poorly named), and the brief descriptions are useful (even if currently inappropriate) .. but, yes, it's present name badly misrepresents Australian Aboriginal peoples and Australian Aboriginal beliefs .. so it SHOULD be renamed!
vi. Perhaps we could initially rename and transform the current List of Australian Aboriginal deities into a kind of Wikiproject Indigenous Australian's assessment/work list, entitled something like "Australian Aboriginal mythological beings - unauthenticated articles without context" ... then seeing this Wikiproject have as one of it's goals "creating, expanding, authenticating, and contextualising articles identifying Australian Aboriginal mythological beings" (using Wikipedia verification principles, supported by a template infobox?).
vii. Once a preagreed 'threshold' level of coverage adequately identifying and describing some of the most notable mythological beings from a sampling (representative)across the Australian continent (>400 Aboriginal groups) is reached .. (eg, very crudely, say threshold sampling aminimum of 2 groups for each for east, north-east, north, north-west, west, south-west, south, south-east, and centre - totalling 18 groups) .. THEN we might start new category entitled something like Australian Aboriginal mythological beings (or better namee/s?), with either locations, key geographical features, or source language/s as sub-categories?!!
Hope this is thoughtful and useful?! Bruceanthro (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, Indigenous Australians definitely do not have the concept of a deity. In fact they would find it offensive. And non-European academics would find it intellectually offensive. The Dreaming treats of ancestral spirits, many of which might be honoured; others not. The spiritualities of the Indigenous nations are quite unlike any other religions. They require serious treatment, in their own context, as does any other article.--Gazzster (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We have the same problem with "gods/goddesses" and "deities" titles in North America; use of these terms is ORIGINALRESEARCH in the extreme; I've fielded comments about e.g. Category:Kwakwaka'wakw gods but nobody seems willing to respond; spirit-beings is the best term I can think of for some of the items in that category and others like it, or "supernatural beings" maybe.Skookum1 (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Using Human Relations Area Files coding to structure this project?[edit]

I guess this is for Riana (talk) and any one else who may be thinking of participating in this project!!

Should this project aim for as comprehensive, complete coverage of the subject, for the indigenous peoples of Australia as a whole, and/or for each of the indigenous Australian groups across Australia as possible..

....then perhaps the dimensions for comparison and contrast of different cultures around the world .. with which Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas (1967) plus his Atlas of World Cultures (1981) illustrate; upon which the Human Relations Area Files and the Standard cross-cultural sample are founded .. may provide a useful, previously trialled, currently used 'schema' for this project to arrange it's activities?

Articles, tasks, requests and categories could, for instance (starting to work systematically through the code), aim to prioritise and cover a selection (ultimately all) of the following, for the whole of Australia, and each Australain Aborignal group (just to name a few:

  • Human Biology
  • Behaviour and Personality
  • Demography
  • History and Culture Change
  • Culture
  • Language
  • Communication
  • Records
  • Food Quest
  • Animal Husbandry
  • Agriculture
  • Food Processing
  • Food Consumption
  • Drink, Drugs
  • Leather, Textiles, and Fabrics
  • Clothing
  • Adornment
  • Exploitative Activities
  • Structures
  • Settlements
  • Energy and Power
  • Tools
  • Property
  • Exchange
  • Marketing
  • Finance
  • Labor
  • Travel and Transporation
  • Fine Arts
  • Recreation
  • Entertainment
  • Individuation and Mobility
  • Social Stratification
  • Interpersonal Relations
  • Marriage
  • Kinship
  • Kin Groups
  • Community
  • Territorial Organization
  • Politics
  • Law
  • Offenses and Sanctions
  • War
  • Social Problems
  • etc etc etc

Articles and categorisations expanding and elaborating the above will be comprehensive, complete, systematic .. and useful for doing comparisons with all those groups, peoples and cultures documented over many decades on Human Relations Area Files and the Standard cross-cultural sample..

What do you think .. way too ambitious and way of beam?!! Bruceanthro (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP Australia template[edit]

It would be useful if the {{WP Australia}} template had the ability to identify articles relevant to this WikiProject. I understand we would need to request this at Template talk:WP Australia. Probably easiest to use "Indigenous=yes". Comments? Paul foord (talk) 13:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone is having a look at this .. and yes please Paul foord (talk)request the "Indigenous=yes" option on Template talk:WP Australia .. unless anyone has any objection/better idea!? Bruceanthro (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done at Template_talk:WP_Australia#Request_for_.27Indigenous.3Dyes.27_to_be_added_to_template Paul foord (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Completed, thank you User:Longhair Paul foord (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

one for GA[edit]

While reviewing the Aust B class articles 2004 Palm Island death in custody looks almost ready to go to GA, basically needs a copy edit and refs/el made consistent. Gnangarra 12:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, it would be fantastic if this project could put a little work into this article to bring it up to GA!!! I suggest discussion as to how to do so continue at Talk:2004 Palm Island death in custody#B class review. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 13:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Some category difficulties[edit]

Keeping Category:Indigenous Australians for individuals works well, but there are a number of things that don't readily fit anywhere. the various massacres fit in Category:History of Indigenous Australians, some such as Northern Territory National Emergency Response, Aborigines in White Australia, Little Children are Sacred, Media portrayals of Indigenous Australians & Stolen generations maybe belong in different categories, ideas? Paul foord (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you're thinking/looking for a catch all category for all of the above?! If so, for all indigneous Australian issues that apply across the whole of Australia, perhaps we could have Category:Pan-Australian Indigenous Issues, distinguishing these larger, across Australia issues from individuals, and/or more locally specific &/or otherwise locatable articles?! Bruceanthro (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Such a Pan-australian indigenous issues category, could, of course have:
  • state based subcategories .. such as Northern Territory indigenous issues (for Northern Territitory intervention), Queensland indigenous issues etc .., plus
  • theme based subcategories covering issues such as 'media issues' (for articles on the way media covers Aboriginal peoples), 'fidicuiary issues' (for articles about Stolen generations, and Stolen wages etc) 'heritage issues' (for articles about protection/destruction of indigenous Australian heritage etc).
I think I'd find such an 'issues' scheme useful .. what do you think?! Bruceanthro (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Consistent nomenclature for articles on Indig. peoples?[edit]

Having just looked at Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia again ... I note:

  1. sometimes groups of Indigneous peoples are named without the term "people" (eg Wangan, Airiman, & Irukandji);
  2. sometimes they are named with the term "people" (eg Wangal people, Arrernte people, Kurrama people) and
  3. other times a range of other terms are used including, for example, Martu (Indigenous Australian) & Jukun people (Australia), & Beeliar (tribe)

Might I suggest this Indigneous peoples of Australia project aim for, encourage and promote a single, consistent nomenclature?! Perhaps all Indigenous peoples of Australia could, as far as practicable, be labelled "people", identifying them as 'peoples'?!! Bruceanthro (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Consistency sounds like a worthwhile objective. FWIW, this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indigenous_peoples has links* to an occasional group of Indigenous people worldwide who have the "people" tags, eg Somali people or Surma people but it appears this is to differentiate them from other uses of those words- Somali and Surma both being disambiguation pages. Not sure if we'll have the same issues here but, if so, at least renaming "(tribe)" etc with "people" sounds logical.
*(The list itself has only the group name, but the links include the "people" bit) WotherspoonSmith (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep!! Just now looked at List of Indigenous Australian group names, and my very first sample from that list ie Guugu Yimithirr .. takes me/us to a disambiguation page for Guugu Yimithirr people and Guugu Yimithirr language.
It would seem that a 'people' nomenclature that favours identifying named indigenous Australian groups of people as 'people' - not only lets the reader know, immediately, that each such article is about a people .. it also disambiguates!!
I'm not sure if we could/should put together and send a single large list of indigenous Australia group names currently unidentified as 'peoples' to WP:RM .. then make the move/s renaming as 'people/s'?! Bruceanthro (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
My preference would be to keep it simple - I expect most searchers would be looking for an article on the "nn people", so leave off "people" unless required for disambiguation, add language to the language article (linked from the group article). One nn search gets to the people article and one click from there the language article and if they want to get to the language directly then nn language. Is there a people info box? There is one for languages that I have seen. The Guugu Yimithirr disambiguation is a case of a good idea misapplied.
May have already been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups & Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages Paul foord (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the people should take precedence over the language. In some cases the language is more famous than its speakers are. Dyirbal for example currently redirects to Dyirbal language; we don't even have an article on the people.
The infobox for peoples is Template:Infobox Ethnic group. --Ptcamn (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul foord appears to give good advice suggesting we favour the simplest nomenclature that also best matches users' likely search habits/terms.

Unlike Paul however, I do not think the use of a single, or pair of Aboriginal words on their own, without a descriptor, is necessarily simple.

I'll use a familiar example to illustrate my point: if we wished to create, write and edit an article on Australian people, the simplest ('recommended?') title for the article would be Australian .. however, dropping the descriptor "people" actually causes the title to loose it's sense.. we find ourselves asking "Australian .. what?", and who would search for an article on Australian people by typing in the word Australian.

It is not simpler, in fact, to use the word "Australian" and drop the descriptor 'people' .. For those familiar with the term 'Australian' .. such a naming practice does not make things easier or simpler .. but, rather, makes things more ambigious!!

Just so with the Aboriginal/indigenous words used to label groups of indigneous Australian people .. Dropping the descriptor "people" does not make things easier or simpler ..it's just more ambigious!

I trialled with the Aboriginal word Arrente. I pressed "go" and discovered the creators of this article did, in fact, find the word/term ambigious .. as it can refer to a people, a langauge and/or an area!! I pressed "search" .. and, yes, now all the Arrente articles are displayed in front of me, listing Arrernte language, Arrernte people, Arrernte (area), &, in addition Arrernte Council. The most ambigious, least useful title in the search list was Arrente - which only leads to a disambiguation page anyway!

In absence of some clear and precise understanding and knowledge of the meaning/s and sense of the Aboriginal words often used to label Aboriginal groups .. it may in fact be the use of descriptors like "people", "langauge", "area", "community" etc others make things simpler and easier for users/searchers?!! It is on these grounds that I'd continue to recommend renaming articles that have indigenous Australian titles, and are in fact about indigenous Australian groups -- attaching the descriptor "people" to those titles?!! Bruceanthro (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

However 3 pages for each people and their language needs to be avoided. (BTW the Arrernte series of articles are not in good shape with a number of micro-stubs, with a mix of ppl & lang foci - the language and the main Arrernte Council articles are the best). Paul foord (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Re Arrernte, I just expanded it to illustrate my point only to have someone revert it as unsourced (along with deleting parts of other articles on my watchlist). Someone else has tagged it to merge to Arrernte people. :-) Paul foord (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The smart way to do it would have been to have Arrernte people moved to Arrernte and then expand that. --Ptcamn (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was in a hurray. Probably time for a break. Paul foord (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
OK ...I see the value of keeping single Aboriginal words (such as Arrernte) .. in the form of a expanded disambiguation article giving a general narrative and pics etc guiding users/readers through all the related uses/dimensions of the word Arrernte!!
As an aside, I note it is just as well (for our nomenclature purposes) that people working on the Arrernte language/s decided to change the spelling from Aranda .. as the currently proposed 'simple' nomenclature could have collapsed under the weight of that disambiguation page!.
Seeing the value of a disambiguation article .. I decided to run a commensurability test, checking to see if disparate "Arrernte" articles do smoothly, neatly and consistently merge into a single article!
Unfortunately, on closer inspection the current sample Arrernte page (still under construction) collapses on the complex amiguity of the word Arrernte!
Re: people and language - the Arrente people (ie people who identify as, and are socially recognised as Arrente) ARE NOT the same as the group of people who may speak Arrente language (ie a French linguist who speaks Arrernte - a Arrernte speaker - is NOT Arrernte; also an Arrernte person who does not speak Arrente (language).. is still Arrente (people))
Re: people and area - the Arrente people ARE NOT the same group of people as those who live or lived in the Central Australian area around Alice springs .. (ie a possible majority of people now living in the area are not Arrente people; also a possible majority of Arrente people do not live in the area, but are still Arrente)
I briefly tried using the term 'ancestors' to mediate ie I tried brief rewrite amending intro to say Arrente people are those people whose 'ancestors' lived in the Central Australia area and spoke Arrente langauges ... but it is still a bit clumsy and comes unstuck, loosing it's sense a little.
In conclusion .. perhaps each Aboriginal word/label for an Aboriginal group should NOT be moved or merged into an same named article with 'people' as a descriptor (eg Arrente people) .. but instead kept as an overview, disambiguation article ... linking to seperate articles that do use descriptors such as people', 'language', 'area' etc ... such that we the exisitng Arrernte people & Arrernte language would be retained (and upgraded)?!! Bruceanthro (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be deceived by those articles that are "FOO people". Of the three I've looked at so far they were all moved by Kwamikagami, the author of a passage in WP:NCL that he added to justify such unnecessary disambiguation (even though this is an ethnic group article he still uses that as a justification); there are currently a host of RMs trying to revert back to the "FOO" form which he is fighting tooth and nail to resist. Y'all should have a look around and count 'em all up; in North America it was hundreds of articles he did this to, without discussion......and most of them are redirects back to the original title only, underscoring how needless such moves are; if any of you are admins that would save a lot of hassle if you just go and revert them, because he objects to one-by-one RMs as being "disruptive" even though he moved them all without any discussion at all. I was gonna look around here and other continents to see where else he's put his one-man-agenda forward, but have been preoccupied with those RMs all day. One thing I note in looking at indigenous articles on other-language Wikipedias is they don't play name-games anywhere near as much, and as a result actually work on the articles instead of fly-by-night renamings without even adjusting the ledes to conform to the new title as required by MOS; he says "nobody" does that.....Skookum1 (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Article ratings[edit]

I have done a quick first run for the Project and generally trust my judgment, I just had a glance at the bot reports, and there are some over-under ratings for both class & importance, not a lot though IMO. Where there is substantial disagreement on a rerating then some discussion may be needed. Feel free to adjust. Still more to do! Paul foord (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Templates moved to tab[edit]

The template links may need to be updated, but there are enough templates to justify the move. Sorry about the colour changes Paul foord (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Australian Place[edit]

Is there anything particular that would enhance Template:Infobox Australian Place for use in this Project? We would need to discuss with that project. Paul foord (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

All this work happening around this project is great Paul! Perhaps, if we are to use Template:Infobox Australian Place .. perhaps it might be possible (?) to see new fields included .. ones such as Site: (Yes/No); Indigenous name (for places); Tindale Name or AIATSIS names: (for regions)??
Bruceanthro (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of mainland Australia[edit]

An old discussion, but ... There has been an substantial earlier discussion about having an 'Aboriginal Australians' article to stand alongside Torres Strait Islanders and Tasmanian Aborigines, under the Indigenous Australians article. Strong arguments were made against an 'Aboriginal Australians' article. Some general article on the 'Indigenous peoples of mainland Australia' (or some such title) would be useful. Paul foord (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Having not been party to the earlier discussion .. I must say that it does appear most odd, and it is most idiosyncratic, that a clearly identifiable class of Australian people:
  1. identified within the Australian constitution as Aborigines
  2. counted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics within the Australian census as Aborigines
  3. identified and defined within Australian court law, (including the High Court of Australia) as Aborigines
  4. identified and defined within numerous statutes and regulations as Aborigines
.. are not able (can not find support?) for a Wikipedia article specifically about them identifying them as a legally defined class of people that in fact exist as Australian Aborigines within Australian law?

Perhaps I/we can start up an article on Australian Aborigines that distinguishes itself from the more general Indigenous Australians article .. by instead focusing on the the origins, changing nature of laws over a century, defining (and creating?) Australian Aboriginal people as a definite, existing class of people ?!! Bruceanthro (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Two new articles[edit]

Just created Torres Strait Islands Region and Northern Peninsula Area Region, about two new entities replacing a heap of DOGIT areas in Far North Queensland. My understanding of the issue is quite technical and not really cultural (as the current content probably shows :)), but there is scope within both of those to document the community councils they replaced and how they came about, and make them into interesting articles. I thought this project was probably the best place to flag them for the sort of attention they need. cheers Orderinchaos 01:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Djabugay people[edit]

Still in the process of expanding this article .. but noted the currently recommended ethnic people's template did not seem well suited to the purpose .. so have adjusted the generic infobox to create a potentially more suritable/useful Indigenous Australian people's infobox?!!

Please feel welcome to test run this infobox on other xxxx Aboriginal peoples articles .. then, perhaps, someone out there might be able to advise/ assist make something like this an Indigenous Australian people infobox to be used/recommended for all such articles?? Bruceanthro (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous Wikipedia[edit]

I'm about to launch a project that will see Australian school students populating Wikipedia with information about indigenous people from their area in Australia. This will result in a comprehensive resource that details the incredible diversity of Australia's indigenous peoples and their nations.

One obstacle we may face is that Australian indigenous culture is predominantly oral with history, stories and culture handed down between generations in families. It is likely that reporting of this oral culture could be construed as original research and be subject to Wikipedia's NOR restrictions. Could I ask Wikipedia editors to take the above into consideration if there is a complaint under the NOR provisions.

The project's goals is to document, in a single accessible location, the diversity of indigenous Australians' culture and history. Australians are generally poorly educated about their indigenous history and culture and this has led to over 200 years of prejudice and discrimination. This has led to many indigenous Australians living in abject poverty with life expectancies well below that of the Australian average. A single authoritative source like Wikipedia will allow a comprehensive approach to educating all Australians about their indigenous heritage and help lead to true reconciliation. The trigger for this project will be a WebQuest currently being developed by Scot Aldred from CQ University and WebQuest Direct.

Your support in this endeavour will be greatly appreciated.Aldredpbl (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme[edit]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dreamings in the article Prayer[edit]

I would like to expand the article Prayer with a paragraph on Australian Aboriginal spirituality. But I want to make sure I get it right. I would like to know whether dreamings can be regarded as a form of prayer in the general sense. Also, is there a Web source I can as a reliable source on dreamings? --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Category inclusion[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indigenous_peoples_of_Australia - has just been added to another category tht might be of interest so some - or not SatuSuro 09:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Indigenous peoples of Australia[edit]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image on WP:IPAU template[edit]

I notice there remains no image associated with the WikiProject tag within the WP:AUS template. Instead we have Image:replace this image.svg. Any suggestions for an all-encompassing image? The flags don't work as there's two of them and a montage would be unreadable given the small image size. Land-based themes would be nice but an outback image doesn't reflect coastal communities and vice versa.

Any suggestions? Euryalus (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

New Category - Kulin[edit]

I have been working away on articles associated with the Kulin alliance in cental Victoria and Port Phillip region. I think it would be useful to have a category called Kulin to add to articles asociated with the Wurundjeri, Bunurong, Wathaurong, Dja Dja Wurrung, and Taungurong tribes. The list of articles is growing, including notable people, events, terms, mythology, etc. Any objections?--Takver (talk) 11:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Australian referendum, 1967 (Aboriginals)[edit]

If someone has a bit of time on their hands, this article could do with a bit of work from someone with a good handle on legal issues... Hack (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Billibellary[edit]

is an article I am currently translating into German. What is "ilbi-jerri"? Thanks schomynv 03:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schomynv (talkcontribs)

Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:16, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Aboriginal Medical Service[edit]

The article Aboriginal Medical Service refers specifically to the Redfern organisation. Given it is linked on Template:Indigenous Australians I wanted to get opinions on whether this article should be specifically about the Redfern AMS or whether it should be either an article on the AMS concept or a disambiguation page for various medical services that use this name.The Hack 12:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Question of whether the Black War should be included in the List of massacres of Indigenous Australians[edit]

A question of whether the Black War should be included in the List of massacres of Indigenous Australians. Also there are a number of [citation needed] tags on the entry with the potential for the noted information to be removed. There is a relationship here with the History wars article and Keith Windschuttles's approach. (See User talk:Nick-D#Black War as in List of Massacres.) -- Paul foord (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Have added some refs to that article and sought to reword the intro using the word 'massacre' (with ref) .. and will wait and see if these changes stay! From this, you can see - yes .. it does seem the article ought be included on that list!! Cheers Bruceanthro (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of Australia articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Indigenous peoples of Australia articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I will post a reply at Version 0.8. Others feel free to check out what i put there. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
For completeness, here are my proposed additions (no proposed deletions):
  • Neville Bonner (had not been tagged by the project - this now fixed) - first Indigenous elected parliamentarian, member of Constitutional Convention, Order of Australia recipient etc etc. Quality of content looks OK, refs not so good.
  • Albert Namatjira (had not been tagged by the project - this now fixed) - along with Bonner, probably the only Indigenous Australians to be household names prior to the 1980s. Quality of content looks OK, refs not so good.
  • If the welter of citation tags could be addressed, would suggest Cathy Freeman (had not been tagged by the project - this now fixed).
  • Contemporary Indigenous Australian art - I have a bit of a COI as this article's creator and main editor, but this art is widely quoted as "the last great art movement of the 20th century" and is of great cultural importance to Australia generally, not to mention to Indigenous Australians. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing[edit]

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on article naming conventions for peoples, ethnicities and tribes[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Articles on peoples (ethnicities and tribes) on how ethnicity articles should be named. Specifically, whether the article on the Foo people should be at "Foo", or at "Foo people" with "Foo" as a disambiguation page distinguishing the Foo people and the Foo language (and any other uses). The current convention is to disambiguate, but this is based largely on discussions at WP:NCLANG and I have suggested that a wider consensus including people interested in ethnicity and indigenous peoples as well as languages would be desirable. joe•roetc 21:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Aboriginal homelands[edit]

It has been suggested that the Return to Country (one line) stub be merged to History of Indigenous Australians. The report Return to Country and other research and the conservative response to the homelands movement from Helen Hughes of the Centre for Independent Studies (Lands of Shame - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 'Homelands' in Transition (2007)) and Gary Johns of the Institute of Public Affairs (Aboriginal self-determination: The Whiteman’s dream, (2010) [discussed by Guy Rundle http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/04/29/rundle-gary-johnss-new-book-noel-pearson-the-oz-and-sonderweg/ ) need to be covered. Paul foord (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

For Anyone Interested[edit]

Hey guys, if any of you are interested I recently created the article Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars. It isn't currently listed as an article within Wikiprojects Indigenous peoples of Australia, so if you would like to add it feel free.--Collingwood26 (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Indigenous people[edit]

I have started an RfC at talk:Indigenous people regarding the definition and scope of the article because some editors are using the page to include all ethnic groups who claim to descend from the first known inhabitants of a place - such as Germans, Finns, Russians, Georgians etc. This definition would exclude several indigenous groups that have migrational histories from the scope and conflict with the established political definitions of the term. Please weigh in on which definition to use.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC - naming of Murujuga (Burrup Peninsula)[edit]

There is an RfC regarding the article name for Murujuga at Talk:Murujuga. Hack (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Indigenous Australian group names[edit]

I left a note on the Talk:List of Indigenous Australian group names page, but have a feeling nobody will notice, since the latest entry was 2008, which didn't get a response. Anyway, please check out my entry:

~Thanks, E : 74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your query referencing native title decisions raises a very good issue, signalling a possible project proposal for Wikiproject Indigenous Peoples of Australia .. where the Federal Court of Australia is making native title determinations confirming the existence of continuing traditional law abiding societies, such as the Mandingalbay Yidinji you mention .. all of whom might be considered peoples or first nations (to use the Aboriginal National Congress's terminology) .. I am beginng to think their should be a new list of Aboriginal peoples of Australia focused almost exclusively on peoples applying to the Federal Court for native title determinations, with a article for each peoples who have obtained a Federal Court determination summarizing the definitions and details of each group as contained in the Court decisions/ determinations! Hoping might have opportunity over this break to start something like this! Bruceanthro (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea! I wish I had the opportunity to participate, but I am already over-extended, and this is a topic that I don't know much about. If it is anything like the North American tribal issue, it can get quite complex. It would be great if there was some sort of outreach to get Aboriginal groups/organizations to participate in WP editing. (Just a thought) ~E : 74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of categories below Words_and_phrases_of_Australian_Aboriginal_origin[edit]

Several categories below Category:Words and phrases of Australian Aboriginal origin have been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_10#Words_and_phrases_of_Australian_Aboriginal_origin. DexDor (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


Category:Australian Aboriginal tribes[edit]

Category:Australian Aboriginal tribes and 5 of its sub-categories, all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikis in Australian Aboriginal languages[edit]

Hi, I just want to tell you that two wikis in aboriginal languages and one in a creole language are hosted in the incubator. Here are the links: Pitjantjatjara Wikipedia, Pitjantjatjara Wiktionary,Torres Strait Creole Wikipedia.--Biol. Cons. (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk: Genocide of indigenous peoples[edit]

There is an RfC at Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RfC:_Scope_of_this_article about whether that article should employ the narrow legal definition of "indigenous peoples" or a broader commonsense definition.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"Boomerang (Australia)"[edit]

The usage of Boomerang (Australia) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) is up for discussion, see Talk:Boomerang (Australian TV channel) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Urratjingu[edit]

Bowern lists an "Urratjingu" language in the northeast. I can't identify it, and it's not listed at AIATSIS. Does anyone have any ideas?

(Since I'm not a regular here, please ping me if you respond.) — kwami (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Categories being considered for deletion or renaming.[edit]

The discussions are here, if anyone has any interest at all.... Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_16 __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission - 04/04[edit]

Wikipedia:Aboriginal Will-Making. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Capitalisation[edit]

I propose the editing of the project page to capitalise the word Indigenous whenever it is used to refer to the Indigenous peoples of Australia. This is standard practice in the interests of inclusive language in government departments, schools and universities Australia-wide. For example: NT Government page [1] Monash University page [2] Tullyis (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Australian capitalization standards, but just commenting that "Aboriginal" in Canada is capitalized as it is a legal/constitutional term; that same principle may apply here.Skookum1 (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying that, an example is List of Aboriginal placenames in Canada, where the A in Aboriginal is capitalized; "indigenous" is not similarly a legal or constitutional term in Canada; First Nations and Metis are capitalized, though an emergent standard in the media and other publications is that when "First Nations" is used adjectivally, it now commonly appears as "first nations [person]".Skookum1 (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the principle applies here, but not in quite so widespread or legal a fashion. Journalism, for example, regularly fails to capitalise Indigenous in the way it should be. Tullyis (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I started applying this but I think it should be reflected as formally as possible in the Wikipedia MOS. I have raised it here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalisation of Indigenous when referring to Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Clare. (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I should say that I believe the MOS already suggests that capitalisation in this instance would be appropriate, as it says "Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms." and in this instance, using the word Indigenous would be denoting a proper name. Clare. (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really follow the logic of this at all. Capitalization of "Aboriginal" I understand, since it's not really a common word and has been associated with certain populations. But "Indigenous"? It's quite a stretch. And you can actually tell how far-fetched the logic is when they explain that the equally indigenous populations of other countries shouldn't be capitalized. Why? Because they're in other countries.
This smacks of highly localized language politics. Resorting to specific capitalization rules for common adjectives seems like the wrong way to go. It seems like this would only serve to complicate our articles Why not make it clear by proper contextualization instead?
Peter Isotalo 13:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Peter, thanks for your thoughts. Perhaps when you say "highly localized" it sounds to me like you mean Australian English localised. It follows then that articles inAustralian English should follow this rule. As the sources referenced by Tullyis at the start of this conversation demonstrate, this spelling is affirmed by sources from right across Australia, including academia and government. Keen to hear what others think? Clare. (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

We should not go with capitalization of that, especially not on the basis of what academic and govt. institutions are doing for political correctness reasons! It's just an adjective, except maybe (this usage would be considered very stilted) when used in a vary particular "direct substitute" way with "the" and in a singular form, e.g. "criticized for their treatment of the Indigenous", and I'm unaware of any variety of English in what that particular phrase would be common, anyway, much less given Victorian capitalization like that.

Attempting to capitalize "indigenous" or "native" it every time it refers to someone or something that is, well, indigenous or native (or of an indigenous or native culture, in a Euro-colonized place) is not at all correct application of the concept of the proper name, any more than is use (in American English) of "urban" to mean "African-American, especially with regard to youth subculture" (as in "strongly affected by urban style and slang") or any other adjectival description of some population or subset thereof that does not consist of or derive directly from an established proper name for them. "Aborigine" and "Aboriginal" in the case of indigenous peoples of Australia is one conventional case (and perhaps the only one for those words; if someone wrote "the aboriginal cultures of North America" this would not be capitalized, because the English-language exonyms for these people are Native Americans and First Nations in US and Canadian English, respectively. You basically can't borrow a usage from one circumstance and try to impose it on another across the world. No one who understands proper naming would capitalize "native" in "legislation to benefit native Australians" in reference to Aboriginals for the same reason.

Mix-and-matching appellations and cultures and varieties of English to invent proper names out of misc. uses of adjectives and nouns is blatant original research, as well as PoV-pushing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Political correctness isn't a disease that needs to be avoided; in this case it's simply saying that Indigenous people have a right to be recognised as a people not as a biological instance. The capitalisation is used to distinguish indigenous and aboriginal as biological terms from Indigenous and Aboriginal as markers of a particular identity. Australian is capitalised. English is capitalised. American is capitalised. Native American is capitalised. Aboriginal and Indigenous need to be capitalised as well when they are used in the same way and, indeed, they are by many style guides in Australia (including the Australian Government Publishing Style Guide 6th edition (2002) pages 56 and 57). These resources also support the case and provide more information:

There is a policy for Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language, and the capitalisation of I in Indigenous, when it is used to refer to a particular person, group of people, or to the First Nations people of Australia in general (as opposed to indigenous populations around the world), is an equivalent practice.--Tullyis (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well put, Tullyis - for your reasons, I support capitalisation Wikiain (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Indigenous people or any other group are not "recognized as a people" by capitalizing every single possible way of referring to them. No one said Aboriginal isn't conventionally capitalized. But "indigenous" is just an adjective here. If moves to have it supplant "Aboriginal" as the standard Australian English name for those people succeeds in 10 or 30 or whatever years, then fine. In 2014, trying to capitalize this here simply because some people do is WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NEOLOGISM, and WP:UNDUE weight.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
If you want a longer term like "Indigenous Australians" (or whatever is considered appropriate), fine. But "claiming" a single common adjective in its capitalized form as exclusively Australian? It's extremely myopic. All equivalent terminology refers to actual nationalities or ethnicities ("English", "Sami", "Hmong") or are somehow qualified ("Native American/American Indian"). What you're suggesting here is like referring to indigenous peoples in the US as simply "Native".
And I'd like to add that I full support gender-neutral language and politically correct common terminology. This, however, is just a bad idea from start to finish.
Peter Isotalo 23:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
When I asked Tullyis at User talk:Tullyis on 22 April about their edit at Contemporary Indigenous Australian art, I wasn't aware of this discussion. Let me repeat some of the points I made there:
  1. There is no Wikipedia guideline recommending the capitalised spelling for the word "indigenous"; MOS:CAPS expresses a clear preference for avoiding capital letters unless there is unambiguous usage as a proper name. Wiktionary does not have an entry for the uppercase variant.
  2. The use of capitalised spelling may be common among government departments, but it's far from universal; many newspapers, including The Australian do not use it.
  3. To suggest that using the lower case spelling is an expression of disrespect is in itself offensive in several ways. English uses capital letters for proper names, not to express societal values.
  4. I don't accept that "indigenous art", "indigenous batik" etc. have to be spelled in uppercase and that not doing so is disrespectful.
A natural consequence of following my proposed usage is that the article I mentioned above should be moved to Contemporary indigenous Australian art. I propose the opposite to Tullyis' proposal: that it should be stated at MOS:CAPS that the word "indigenous" never be capitalised unless in a quote which uses it that way. I believe that this is a matter of style, just as the spelling of section headings or calendar items is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Indigenous is not at all "just an adjective" in Australia. In Australia we have Aboriginal people and we have Torres Strait Islander people. Both are Indigenous but it is not correct to call both Aboriginal. Therefore, the term Indigenous has evolved into a proper noun in the way that Aboriginal is generally recognised as a proper noun when referring to specific peoples. Therefore, when talking about Indigenous Australians, it needs to be capitalised in the same way that Aboriginal is capitalised. As the Australian Human Rights Commission says, "The 'I' in 'Indigenous' is capitalised when referring specifically to Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The lower case 'i' for 'indigenous' is only used when referring to people originating in more than one region or country such as the Pacific region, Asiatic region, Canada or New Zealand." From https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/questions-and-answers-about-aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-peoples Tullyis (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to specify indigenous Australians, just write "Indigenous Australians". Same thing goes for culture: "Indigenous Australian art" or whatever. How hard can it be? It's a really clear case of stating the obvious. What the Commission and other organizations are doing is well-intended, but obviously misguided political posturing. We have absolutely no obligation to follow their recommendations in this matter, whether it be in Australian-themed articles or not.
Peter Isotalo 12:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Nope. If you insist on capitalizing something, the phrase you need in is "the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples", not "the Indigenous peoples". "Indigenous" would not be capitalized in that usage because it is just an adjective. NO amount of insistence on your part that it isn't will change that. If I have two friends with no hair, Steve and Bob, I can refer to them as "Steve and Bob" or as "my bald friends", but not "my Bald Friends". Properness of names does not magically transfer to stand-ins for them. If I refer to Canada as the country north of mine, it is not the Country North of Mine. I note how you think that if "indigenous" includes T. S. Islanders it must be capitalized as a show of respect, but if it includes even more Pacific Islanders is mustn't be. Kind of like how eating one chocolate bar is bad for you, but eating an entire case in one sitting is great?

I'm sorry, but you're just picking up a usage from a government site and trying to push it on the rest of Wikipedia. No thanks. Government publications are the worst possible source for anything to do with style, since they largely pretend that hyphenation doesn't exist, that capitalization is a form of emphasis, and engage in too many other style and grammar "sins" to get into here. Wikipedia is not the Australian Human Rights Commission, and is not bound by their internal style guide. See the internal EU style guide[3]; it's full of things MOS/WP would never do. I'm sure if we had a full copy of AHRC's it would be objectionable in dozens of ways to. The AHRC page you point us to reads like a 14-year-old wrote it. It's a hodge-podge of largely unsourced factoids, statistics (sourced, but old), non sequiturs like "Aboriginal Australians have the longest continuous living culture in the world" in the "A note on terminology" section, etc. And it's clear that the "The 'I' in indigenous..." section is referring to AHRC's own publications. They're not legislating what everyone else has to do, they're trying to lead a language change by example. And failing, as even Australian reliable sources do not capitalize this way, so WP won't either.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

PS, re: "Journalism, for example, regularly fails to capitalise Indigenous in the way it should be." – That's WP:ADVOCACY. Wikipedia doesn't tell the preponderance of Australian news publishing that they should do something differently. We can choose to ignore something they do, if it's something too news style for encyclopedic writing, but that's nothing like the case here. They're reflecting actual usage and expectations of usage. AHRC has not succeeded (yet?) in convincing everyone to capitalize "indigenous" in the context of Australia.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


You say above that you accept that Aboriginal isn't simply an adjective and can be capitalised. The word Aboriginal evolved from being an adjective into a proper adjective. Language evolves. The word Indigenous has evolved, at least in the Australian context. I see why you think that my view here is advocacy but in my local context it is racist to use a lower case i for Indigenous when referring to indigenous peoples in general. The avoidance of racism isn't advocacy. Wikipedia has a policy of inclusive language for gender. I'm sure it has a policy about racist language as well, though I haven't found it yet. What source would you accept as evidence that 'Indigenous', like 'Aboriginal,' has become an identity marker and proper adjective? How about the Macquarie Dictionary - the leading Australian dictionary. The Macquarie Dictionary online has two entries: one for indigenous and one for Indigenous:

indigenous

   /ɪnˈdɪdʒənəs/ (say in'dijuhnuhs)
   adjective 1. (sometimes followed by to) originating in and characterising a particular region or country; native: the plants indigenous to Canada; an indigenous people; indigenous bird species.
   2. Rare (often followed by to) inherent; natural: feelings indigenous to human beings.
   [Late Latin indigenus, from Latin indigena native]
   –indigenously, adverb
   –indigenousness, noun

Indigenous

   /ɪnˈdɪdʒənəs/ (say in'dijuhnuhs)
   adjective 1.  of or relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: Indigenous issues.
   –noun 2.  an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
   Usage: See note at Aborigine.

Tullyis (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I see your one book, and raise you... a 2:1 ratio in favor of lower case.[4] In fairness, other searches can be constructed to show a lead for "I" vs. "i".[5] What this proves is that, yes, while the language is changing, and the usage you champion here does seem to be increasing in currency, it is not yet the dominant usage. There is no MOS/WP issue here. Come back in 10 years, it might well be standard usage. WP is not in a position to predict that outcome or to push for it; these are clear matters of policy (WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:SOAPBOX).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
And look what happens if we take out "the" and just talk about Indigenous Australians.[6] If you are concerned that that construction might ring in too many titles, skewing the result, here are a few others [7] [8] [9][10]Tullyis (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Tullyis, you're absolutely right about "Aboriginal". That word did evolve from a pretty common adjective. It even broke through on a global scale with straight phonetic calques like aborigin (Swedish) aborygeni (Polish) and aborijini (Japanese). Nothing even remotely close is true for "indigenous", not even for English-speakers in general. For the vast majority, it's still an adjective, not an Australian ethnicity. In that sense, I completely agre with SMcCandlish: this is a form of WP:ADVOCACY.
"The avoidance of racism isn't advocacy." Just stop it right there. Have you actually thought about the symbolic meaning of capitalizing the indigenous peoples of just one country? Do you have any idea of how absurd it seems when you, in the name of just treatment, empowerment, etc, insist that the same term you claim is "racist" in Australia is perfectly fine for indigenous peoples in the rest of the world? You're combining the more high-handed methods of political correctness with some pretty stale nationalist tendencies. You're not in a position to take the moral high ground here.
Peter Isotalo 23:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Peter, kindly return to the original proposal by Tullyis: "I propose the editing of the project page to capitalise the word Indigenous whenever it is used to refer to the Indigenous peoples of Australia." The proposal concerns only references to I/indigenous peoples in Australia, where I can assure you the name "Indigenous" refers to the ethnic category "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander". That is common and (albeit recently) generally preferred usage in Australia, where I live and interact with Indigenous citizens. Please accept assistance about Australian culture from those of us who live in Australia. Tullyis has not suggested, and neither would I, that this capitalisation should be applied to other countries: I would gladly accept assistance regarding those countries from those who live there. Wikiain (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm only arguing for the case for one country because I know the local context - local context has to be relevant or else neutral and unbiased becomes equivalent with a North American/ European perspective. It is racist in this context because it undermines the human agency of a group of people by aligning them with a biological designation. If racist is too strong a word for the subjection of a group of people to a biological designation, then we might say "non-inclusive language" then, and inclusive language is a policy of Wikipedia, articulated at least in as far gender is concerned.

Answer me this: why does First Nations get capitalised on Wikipedia when Indigenous Australian cannot? 'First' is an adjective just as 'Indigenous' is. 'First Nations' is an identity marker just as 'Indigenous Australians' is. The only difference is that its designation as such is complicated by a history of transition form a regular or common adjective where First Nations is not, and this is clouding the issue here. Tullyis (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not simply advocate the consistent use of the full term "Indigenous Australian"? It doesn't complicate how articles are written, it doesn't encroach on the wider meaning of "indigenous (peoples)" and it's helpful to readers.
Peter Isotalo 09:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't it get complicated for terms like "non-indigenous Australians"? Back to common usage: the Google Ngrams show no clear preference, and there's considerable variation in Wikipedia articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It would be as odd as "non-native Americans" in my view. Seems like an easy term to avoid.
Peter Isotalo 11:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
"Answer me this: why does First Nations get capitalised on Wikipedia when Indigenous Australian cannot?" You've already been answered on this several times: Reliable sources very consistently support capitalization of First Nations, in reference to indigenous Canadians, and they do not consistently support capitalization of Indigenous in reference to indigenous Australians. Please stop playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games. Anyway, there's a poll running on this, so further jabbering on about it here is a waste of time.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Your accusation here is really hurtful and is not within the spirit of Wikipedia. I've now gone back to look at what the specific discussion about the usage of First Nations nations was in this discussion and the *only* thing you've said is that one can't borrow usage from one part of the world and apply to another. There was no grammatical discussion about the term at all. You seem to be privileging North American usages over Australian usages. Tullyis (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
You own your own emotions and reading comprehension/interpretations. Please stop taking this debate personally. It's not about you or your feelings about Australian groups and their dignity and how to refer to them, it's about whether what you prefer to see is supported so strongly by reliable sources that Wikipedia is compelled to adopt it (answer: no). I'm not "accusing" you of anything, I'm observing that your talk page editing on this topic fits the pattern covered by the guideline I linked to, and is problematic for that reason. It's also covered by my WP:SSF essay: This is definitely a case of the specialist style fallacy, in which because one is steeped in a particular circle of literature that engages in a certain style quirk, one expresses either real or feigned disbelief and indignance that anyone outside one's circle/field/specialty/politics could possibly disagree with the usage one is pushing, and will act as if all the arguments presented against it simply don't exist or have not been made – they're either effectively invisible to or craftily skirted by the specialty-style fallacious because of their advocacy-level certainty in the "correctness" of their specialty usage, even outside their specialty's own publications. And you just did it again: There is no "grammatical" or "privileging" arguments to make about what the reliable sources are doing and in what proportion. It's not about my opinion or yours, it's about sources (I'm going to keep repeating that so you can't act as if I haven't said it). I'm not going to repeat what I just posted to WT:MOSCAPS about the overall issue and how it relates to what WP should do, because this discussion should not be forked any longer; I'll just link to a diff of it here; it answers your North Am. vs. Aus. point completely (short version: again, it's about sources, not geography or favoritism or grammar).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Indigenous Australians/Archive 7#Spelling "Indigenous" / "indigenous" -- Paul foord (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)