Talk:Indigenous Australians/Archive 2

message: What happened to the article Prominent Indigenous Australians?? It was there a while ago Cfitzart 05:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indigenous is lowercase when in ordinary use as an adjective, as is aboriginal. But they both should be capitalised in this context, surely. --bainer (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I notice many of the articles modified to replace Aborigines and aboriginals(sic) with indigenous Australians are capitalising Indigenous which looks weird in the middle of a sentence since it isn't a title. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Style Manual for authors, editors and printers (Sixth edition)  states that "Indigenous. Capital I; when referring to Australian Indigenous peoples nationally" Paul foord 09:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation of Indigenous

message: A recent edit summary removed a heading, with a comment along the lines of "doesn't need separate 'Australian Aborigines' heading - the whole article is about them". I think the heading was valuable, but seek consensus rather than immediate reversion (due to other edits): This article is about all indigenous Australians, which is usually taken to mean Aborigines, Torres Strait Islanders (and perhaps Tasmanian Aborigines separately). As such, if parts of the article are specifically not discussing TSI people, it is appropriate to put it under a heading of Australian Aborigines or similar, with the expectation of farming out a daughter article again when that content becomes large enough. Perhaps other parts of Australia are different, but here if someone says "Indigenous Australians", they are deliberately including TSI people as well as Aborigines, which looks really odd when reading an article about a remote community a few hundred kilometres from Alice Springs for example.  --Scott Davis Talk 09:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the person who put the Australian Aborigines heading because the article is not all about them it is about Indigenous Australians. Paul foord 10:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I can see why you would do it in contrast to Torres Strait islanders, since the section it was above - the tribes articles - I dont think mentions Torres Strait islanders. The heading might be valuable, but the section was about communities/tribes, would it be better to rename it "Australian Aboriginal communities"? Cfitzart 11:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "The purpose of renaming the articles was to get rid of the word "Aborigine," which is disliked by most politically active indigenous people" - is this an encyclopedia of what is, or what "politically active people" (of any race) would like it to be? 58.104.84.50 21:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I may have been a trigger to these wholesale changes (by proposing harmonisation of the category structure at the Australian noticeboard), and removal of "Aborigine" was not my intent. I have seen claims of this dislike, but could somebody please provide a reference for it in the article? At the moment there is an unreferenced "Some indigenous Australians consider the term "Aborigine" derogatory, linking it to negative aspects of Australia's colonial history." which is about as useful as "Some Australians consider the term 'White' to be derogatory." being put in the article on White Australia policy. As I understand it, Australia has between two and four broad groupings of indigenous people (Aborigines are one of these, but only Torres Strait Islanders and Tasmanian Aborigines get their own articles at present), but is really much better described as having had around 300 separate indigenous peoples. The article as it stands does nothing to clarify this to a reader with no background information. --Scott Davis Talk 03:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: In response to Cfitzart and Adam Carr. There are main articles on Australian Aboriginal tribes (better stated as clans, groups and communities), music, art and languages. These properly fit under a heading, separate and distinct, from Torres Strait Islander. The argument about 'most politically active indigenous people' seems problematic. I have contact with people whose ancestors who have lived here since before white settlement and they do not object to the use of the term Aboriginal Australians. Given that it is common usage, among most of those people themselves, and generally understood, then in an encyclopaedia, I believe it is appropriate to use the term. The articles on art, music, and language are not about Torres Strait Islander. Paul foord 13:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Why did we "have to" get rid of "Aborigine" and "Aboriginal"? If the majority of the people to whom it refers themselves use the term, why should we bow to misguided pressure from the PC camp? What happens when "Indigenous" becomes the most common term, will we have to start using "differently-gened"? If it was a deliberately offensive word, like savage, or seppo, I could understand it but in this case no, there's nothing wrong with "aboriginal". In any case the bottom line is the common usage argument, IMO. --Russell E 11:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: How can Aborigine (with a capital A) be so general as to refer to any indigenous people anywhere in the world, but Aboriginal is specific to excluding TSI? Surely they are noun and adjective forms of referring to the same group(s). --Scott Davis Talk 05:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aborigines or all indigenous Australians

message: :Indigenous Australians are the people who lived in the Australia and its nearby islands before the arrival of European settlers in 1788...
To me this text suggests that Indigenous Australians are all over 200 years old. "A people who..." or, preferably, "the people descended from those who..." would give the correct impression. But I hestitate to change it in case the current wording is the norm in history, ethnography or whatever... --Rkundalini 01:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with your concern. I reworded it accordingly -- Ian ≡ talk 03:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous Australians are the people who ... 

message: Is it possible that we could attach to the article links to particular groups? I have added some detail to the Kaurna group and I would like this linked to this page. How about working on some other particular groups? Frances76 11:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Australian Aboriginal tribes article has info on groups which link to the main article on them. I have added Kaurna to the list there --- Cfitzart 12:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What about particular groups?

message: There is evidence to suggest that some indigenous communities did in fact have systems of agriculture in place for growing yams etc (it is not true that no indigenous plants are able to be cultivated) and there is significant evidence pointing to the farming of, or at least sophisticated management and culling of, populations of fish and kangaroo... What do we say about editing that bit or maybe making a new page about 'Bush tucker'?
:You're welcome to edit the page, Be bold. There already is a page Bush tucker though it is pretty short right now Astrokey44 05:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But to say that 'the Aborigines did not practice agriculture' without the 'no plants that can be cultivated' sentence implies that it was possible for them to have practiced agriculture, which they could not due to the lack of there being any crops. None of the indigenous plants could be cultivated on the scale of say, wheat, maize or rice.  ---- Astrokey44 08:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Several species of wattle seeds are used to make something like flour, and they could be cultivated in a similar way to how tea and coffee are cultivated, but it's easier not to bother. And what's to say that kangaroo grass or any other grasses could not have been cultivated in a similar way to wheat, rice or barley, just because they have not been? --Scott Davis Talk 08:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From agriculture: "Agriculture is the process of producing food, feed, fiber and other desired products by the cultivation of certain plants and the raising of domesticated animals (livestock)." And from agriculture on Wiktionary: "The art or science of cultivating the ground, including the harvesting of crops, and the rearing and management of live stock; tillage; husbandry; farming." Nothing about annual planting in there, and the definition is not limited to plants. It seems the central concept is "cultivation". --bainer (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No agriculture?

message: I believe that this Wikipedia article needs to present more balance in regards to contemporary issues facing Aboriginal Australia.  There seems to be a subtle biased view within the article.  Constructive criticisms (fact based without the subjectivity of opinion) of Aboriginal Australia need to be available to balance the information presented, especially for the international audience.
For example, the main article mentions the fact that Aborigines live on average, 20 years less than the rest of mainstream Australia.  This statement, left on its own, can lead to varying conclusions for the uneducated, ie: its's the Anglo Saxon's fault.  It is a pity that life expectancies are not available for Aborigines circa 1788 for comparison.  I believe that the points of poor personal hygeine and poor diet by Aborigines, especially in remote areas are the main cause of the shorter lifespan.  Add in the fact of high rates of alcoholism, domestic violence, drug addiction, petrol sniffing, etc... these are main contributing factors in regards to teh lifespan issue.
Why aren't major instances of anti-social behaviour mentioned, for example: Palm Island riots, Redfern riots?
I believe that there also needs to be a subsection of the main article that highlights the failure of government policy in regards to positive discrimination.  It just hasn't worked, and has created a destructive welfare culture.  This has led, especially during the last generation, of people claiming Aboriginality simply for financial benefit (ie: Geoff Clark, whose father is Scottish).  User:Michael Potts 11:30pm 9th November, 2005.
:You might want to collect data on the lifespan of the European population in 1788 before you start making comparisons. Life expectancy has risen across the board since records started being collected. The life expectancy of indigenous people in 2002 (56 years for men) was equivalent to the average of the total population in the first decade of the 20th century . The picture painted by all the statistics is that the healthcare system is delivering benefits much more slowly to indigenous populations. --bainer (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And to anyone arguing that, the reply could be given that the largest indigenous population is in Sydney's western suburbs, and that the most significant individual populations are mainly in rural/regional centres in Queensland . I think it might be useful to mention that the life expectancy of indigenous Australians is probably higher in 2005 than it was in 1788. But the increase over the same period is much less than the health system has delivered to the general population. I can't find any statistics on life expectancy for the 19th century, but given that the indigenous population declined from ~300,000 in 1788 to 60,000 in the 1920s, the life expectancy must have been much lower then. And although indirect causes such as disease may have been the main cause, this still points to a failure of the health system. --bainer (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporary Issues

message: Hi. I moved the Tasmanian Aborigines to Indigenous Tasmanians to remain consistent. Was that was the correct thing to do, or should I change it back? Any thoughts? --Hottentot
:I have never heard "Indigenous Tasmanians" used. The term is "Tasmanian Aborigines". There is no confusion there about both Australian Aborigine and polynesian communities that I am aware of. --Scott Davis Talk 09:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Indigenous Tasmanians]] 

message: I have a question in relation to the conventions that should be used in naming different groups (and articles on them). The Spinifex people are also called the Pila Nguru, a name I expect comes from their tradition - it is not explained in the article. In selecting article titles for Indigenous Australian groups what criteria should be used? The List of Australian Aboriginal tribes is based on Norman Tindales 1974 book and may be dated. 
Paul foord 10:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need to try to go beyond the Wikipedia:Naming conventions Paul foord 10:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of groups 

message: See the ABS website
:BACKGROUND INFORMATION - WHO IS INDIGENOUS?
:WHAT IS THE MEANING OF INDIGENOUS?
:In Australia the term Indigenous is used to refer to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Therefore, officially Australia has two groups of Indigenous people...
It makes reference to "The Little Red, Yellow & Black and Green and Blue and White Book"
:Paul foord 21:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That link was very enlightening. I recall the Government used to classify Aborigines based on the proportion of Aboriginal blood line but I see this practice was abandoned in 1992 and replaced with a softer definition along the lines of someone considering themselves to be an Indigenous Australian, and also considered to be by the rest of the Indigenous Australian community. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ABS definition

message: Am I the only one who feels there is a lack of balance with regards to the current day? The article mentions high unemployment, high imprisonment etc but does not mention the well publicised allegations of a fair amount of discrimination by Australian employers and the police against indigenous Australians. Nor does it mention the well published allegations of a high level of discrimination and racism by the Australian public towards indigenous Australians. Someone mentioned it does not mention incidents such as the Redford riots, I agree it should but we need to also make sure we provide a brief summary of the background around the incidents (obviously the detail should be in the individual articles) so that people do not assume these incidents can be solely blamed indigenous Australians. 203.118.187.53 17:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fairly senstive topic, perhaps that's why no-one touched it. The correct way to approach it would be with a carefuly chosen set of opinions or statements attributed to public figures, with meticulous referencing. Personal opinions like yours or mine would be asking for trouble, for example I disagree with your claims of a "high level" of discrimination and racism; the vast majority of Australians support reconciliation and efforts to improve socio-economic and health conditions for Aboriginals, which is indicative of a level of basic respect... we'd never reach consensus and all we can do is provide a sampler of (published, i.e. elite, unfortunately) public opinion. --Russell E 01:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is so much that these topics have been deliberately or censoriously avoided, but more that no-one has yet gotten around to expanding upon these points. I agree that these points do warrant thoughtful coverage, though... it's on the list...--cjllw | TALK 06:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that this whole area is quite under-represented here. So I am going to stick my neck out and start inserting some material. I'll try very hard to do so with a neutral point of view, and try to make sure I give a reference for anything which may be questioned, but no doubt it will take many iterations by all of us before we get it right. So - here goes - welcome to the New Year!--Rayd8 03:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of balance 

message: I've added a fair amount of stuff to this today, and plan to add more over the next few days. No doubt others will too. It's already 43kB, so perhaps the time has come to break it up a bit? Any views? Rayd8 11:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this article getting too long?

message: Rayd8 removed discrimination from the causes of poor health, saying that "this may well be your view, and many would agree with you, but it is an opinion, not a established fact, and so is inappropriate in wikipedia, which strives to maintain a neutral point of view. (rest of message is here)
I was not referring to lack of access to health care facilities, but ill-health caused by social determinants (the conditions in which people live and work), such as poverty, social exclusion (discrimination), inappropriate housing, unsafe employment conditions etc. (WHO: Commission on Social Determinants of Health). This is quite agreed upon in the field of public health and health promotion.--Ezeu 18:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrimination as a cause for ill-health 

message: I think a more contemporary image would be better for the top of the page than the current one. Indigenous Australians are often represented as belonging to the past (classically, the time of European arrival), rather than as a living culture. Maybe just the flag is neutral enough for the first image? Many pages about ethnic groups are now using a standard infobox template. See Berber for a good example, with a few photos to show both the past and present. I'm not 100% convinced by the infobox, but it's one option anyway. Any thoughts? —ntennis 15:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most appropriate image for top of page? 

message: **The image of the flag is copyright - see the image's talk page for further info.  Its use in this article is not within the wikipedia fair use guidelines.  You could use the Aboriginal Tent embassy image if you wanted a more up to date image, but not sure what is to be gained by using images already in use in other articles.  The article is already long at 42 k and the use of additional images should be minimised--A  Y  Arktos 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the source of information that Thomas sold his rights to the Commonwealth?  Thomas (and others) took the issue to court (1997)  after the flag was proclaimed an official Australian flag (1995).  My understanding is that any reproduction of the design must seek the permission of Thomas.  Does anyone have information other than that?  If so what source?--A  Y  Arktos 09:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright of Aboriginal Flag 

message: The term includes the various indigenous peoples generally known to Europeans as Aborigines...  has been changed to The term includes the various indigenous peoples commonly known as Aborigines... .  I think Australian indigenous people today often self-reference into smaller groups, or by state - for example New South Welsh call themselves Kooris or by their tribe/nation (eg Wiradjuri).  Bureaucrats ask them to self identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander for such organisations as education departments or Centrelink.  I am sure they did not refer to themselves as Aborigines before 1788!  It is a European word and refers to more than Australian Aborigines, for example there are Aborigines in Taiwan.--A  Y  Arktos 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: I think it is clear that this article is becoming too long, and it is equally clear that there are still some glaring gaps (noted above) that have yet to be filled. It would be a great shame to restrict the amount of information in it because of length. Therefore some sections need to be moved to new articles. I'm happy to take on this job, but would appreciate the thoughts of other major contributors on how it should be broken up. Suggestions? Rayd8 22:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if its going to be restructured it should be done as a userpage first because there are quite a few controversial areas -- Astrokey44|talk 13:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring this article 

message: Isn't this section title a bit POV seeing it expresses an opinion about the possible future development of indigneous—non-indigenous relations? Especially seeing as, like it or not, some people (indigenous or not) don't support reconcilation. --Russell E 21:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Path to Reconciliation