Talk:Indigenous Australians/Archive 4

message: I've removed
: Linguists, however, define a tribe as a group of people who are mutually intelligible.
as it's incorrect--linguists tend to avoid the term 'tribe' and deal more with languages, which may or may not correspond with some notion of 'tribe'. Dougg 06:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of 'tribe' 

message: The Culture section seems to imply that the 'walkabout' is a myth propograted by Non-Aborigines. If so, it doesn't belong in the Culture section at all, but rather a section on misconceptions about Aboriginal people. Does anything have any insight on this? Ashmoo 04:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture: Walkabout

message: This is a request for this aricle to be expanded. I am a student and am doing an asignment on traditional aboriginal technologies. There is not a lot in this article about the tools they used and the various different technolgies they used before europian settlement. It would be much appreciated if someone with a good understanding of this area could expand this article as it would benefit any student or person wishing to find information on this topic.
Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.67.98  (talk • contribs) 
:I honestly mean no offense by this (which normally starts for an offensive reply, but bare with me), but this would be the perfect opportunity for you to contribute. Do a lot of research for your own assignment (By the way, I would strongly suggest against using Wikipedia as a source on any assignment), find some sources, and expand this article yourself (sources included) to help the next person who comes along. Trjn 10:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to indicate the same sentiment as Trjn. You will learn a lot more by doing your own research, and can then contribute to Wikipedia with what you found. Wikipedia (and any other encyclopaedia) should not be used as a source for your assignment, but an overview to help you discover what you need to explore to get the details. Ideally, Wikipedia will provide references, external links, and a bibliography to help you find source materials for your assignment. We look forward to seeing your results. --Scott Davis Talk 11:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for this article to be expanded 

message: Instead of using the term 'Dreamtime' the term 'Dreaming' is more appropriate.  Aboriginal culture is multifaceted with the Dreaming being in the future as well as the past and above and below.  'Dreamtime' suggests that it was in the past and is over, where 'Dreaming' decribes how it really is i.e still happening.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.205  (talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 July 2006   (UTC+10 hours)
*See discussion at Talk:Dreamtime_%28mythology%29#Could_we_move_this_page.3F and below. --A Y Arktos\talk 21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreamtime vs Dreaming 

message: I removed the following para from the Population section as the cited source makes no mention of the number of people defined as Ind.Austs increasing faster than the birth rate. The source also directly contradicts the without being of indigenous descent' assertion (I suspect the original editor confused AND and OR).
The number of people defined as Indigenous Australians has increased faster than natural birth rate over the last century as a result of the reclassification of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin to include, amongst other things, those people who consider themselves to be Aboriginal, and recognised as such by their community, without being of indigenous descent.
Ashmoo 02:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: I have a suggestion regarding the cultural taboo of naming deceased Aborignal people. I was thinking of a template that could be inserted at the top of all pages that refer to Aboriginal or TSI people, something along the lines of "This article may refer to living or deceased people of Aboriginal or TSI descent." Perhaps with an image of the Aboriginal and TSI flags in the boxes at left and right? What do others think? I do not have sufficient expertise in the markup language to create one in template space, perhaps I will work it out myself but if there is a consensus that it would be necessary/helpful/polite, then anyone else feel free to create this template. Shiftaling 07:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's necessary. WP is not censored and we shouldn't needlessly clutter articles just because some people might have certain sensitivities. JSIN 10:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Similar things have been talked about here and here, but not yet implemented. I personally think it would be a good idea. --Ptcamn 10:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "I don't think that's necessary... needlessly clutter" is very much a POV statement from a certain cultural viewpoint - you say it's needless but the Wikipedia has warnings that prevent people spoiling their enjoyment of the latest Hollywood release.  How  US-centric.  Personally I would like to hear the opinion of any person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent (basically anyone with a direct interest) add to the discussion.  By the way, censorship of Wikipedia was NEVER MENTIONED Shiftaling 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Media Watch, an Australian TV show which studies and reports on the media and its foibles, has published a NT journalist's guide to referring to deceased Aboriginal people which may be useful. I think the treatment of spoilers in movies should be a guide to how we handle this one. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 21:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature of deceased Aboriginal or TSI people 

message: While it is reasonable to assume you will find elements of racism pretty much anywhere towards anyone (particularly a minority), I don't accept POV such as "there remains the issue of incipient racism" without solid representation in the literature and no independant research. It's just too important an issue to have lying around begging the question Rpf 15:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission published pretty extensively on racism in Australia, so provinding a fairly accurate description of racism in Australia should be possible. Racism. No Way. lists these publications as good sources.--Peta 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: While good, the article tends to provide a view of Aborigines that is true for only a small proportion. While outlining the traditional ways of life is very important, the article tends to ignore the reality of modern Aborigines. ie. Live in urban areas, follow Christian beliefs in line with the majority culture etc. Ashmoo 07:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article would be better without any sweeping generalisations. --bainer (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. I meant to say 'the majority of modern Aborigines'. Ashmoo 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm interested to know what the 'erroneous statements about the history of Aboriginal art.' in this article are. While it's a very brief summary, it looks pretty accurate to me. Dougg 23:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: State of Aborigines today

message: The comment about 'Blacks' and Aust. Aborigines seems out place in the introduction. Is this, which is a debunking of an 'urban myth' really so important that it needs to be in the intro? Additionally, it contains no cite for the assertion that it is commonly believed. Thirdly, Black has no universally agreed upon technical definition and it is a colloquial term. My impression is that Black in the US refers to people of African descent, while in Australia the term (much less used in that context) more often refers to anyone with dark skin. Ashmoo 03:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - it's quite odd in the intro. It possibly belongs in the Definitions section to explain the Australian usage and sensitivities of the term, as it appears different to other uses. --Scott Davis Talk 12:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Blacks' and Australian Aborigines 

message: This article, while not mentioning eg Colin Tatz´s "Aboriginal Suicide is Different" (2001, 2005)conversely manages to quote almost nothing written on Aborigines before 1999 and adopts the familiar post-1980 PC, finger-wagging tone while giving few or no citations. The role of land-as-religion/Alcheringa pre-1788 is massively understated (is every Wikipedia writer an atheist or agnostic who cannot imagine religion?)  and causes of death in nomadic hunter-gatherer Australian society are suppressed. Further, the male-female inequality of that society is whitewashed, presumably for obsessive fear of "racism". Note that women had no choice, there was arranged marriage as evidenced at least for the tribes mentioned by Kenneth Maddock "The Australian Aborigines" (1974).
This seems to be because the romantic pre-Lapsarian, Golden Age (cf.Hesiod) yearning of post-Leftist, identity politics-type, Anglo pre-historians/anthropologists leads to them ignoring: abortion, infanticide, cannibalism, warfare and geriatricide as adaptively necessary behaviours among nomadic hunter-gatherers in Australia. Underlying this is the conflict outlined by Steven Pinker (2002) in "Blank Slate", ie the politics of the 21st century observer dictates what gets said and written about pre-1788. 
For Australian Aborigines, all of the above were observed by European observers (biassed!male!white!British!Christian!anti-Condoleeza Rice!) separately or as clusters in some bands at some time in the 19th century: see G Blainey, "Triumph of the Nomads", 1976, for the primary 19th century sources. 
The fear, in the frantic moralistic jockeying for the tenurable financial favour of research-grant dispensing and career-making govt. and university bureaucrats - seems to be that eg indigenous legal rights in USA/Canada/Australia are somehow endangered if you give an unvarnished account of pre-invasion societies. But there is no logical connection.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.134.80.12 (talk • contribs) 18 August 2006
*If you have all these refs then use them. Get off your behind and right instead of just cshallowly criticise. Please dont let up will you. And please get a wikipedian username so we can all argue out a mass edited consensus article. And sarcasm whilst often self-gratifieing may often mutual communication. Eric A. Warbuton 06:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediocre article; Causes of death 

message: The neutrality of this article is in question. See here:
"This does not necessarily translate directly into a higher crime rate by Indigenous Australians; it has been alleged (e.g. by John Pilger in A Secret Country) that Indigenous Australians are more likely to be charged and imprisoned for a minor crime than a non-Indigenous Australian."
John Pilger is a dissident journalist and I am not sure he is a source worth quoting. He has some pretty wild and woolly ideas. Many of them are found in the pages of "A secret country".
For example, in that book he devoted a whole chapter to theories of CIA involvement in the downfall of the Whitlam government.
We now know today that there was in fact no CIA involvement in the so called "Constitutional Crisis" of 1975.
John Pilger's theory that Indigenous Australians are more likely to be charged and imprisoned for a minor crime than a non-Indigenous Australian is just that - one of his theories.
If we mention one of his theories about aboriginal crime in this article then it is only fair that we mention one of mine if that's OK with everyone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.187.178.8 (talk • contribs) 5 October 2006.
:If the 'theory' is your own, then no, that would not be OK. Pilger (whatever may be thought of his views) is at least notable, and what he's had to say on the topic can be independently verified (that he did say or write it). The opinions/views/theories of individual wikipedia contributors are, on the other hand, not notable; doing so would also be against the policy of No Original Research.--cjllw | TALK 23:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to second that. John Pilger is notable. Unless you are a notable commentator on Aboriginal affairs, your theory can not be included. Ashmoo 23:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If these things are facts, provide reputable sources and you are free to include them in the article. Ashmoo 03:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: PLEASE sign your posts! IF this is a "documented scientific fact", please quote a reputable scientific journal, and the name and author of at least one of the refereed papers that document it. If YOU are the author, it's probably better that you provide the reference to it on this talk page and let someone else add it to the article. --Scott Davis Talk 11:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably the anon contributor is referring to the data in Richard Lynn's latest Race/IQ book, Race Differences in Intelligence. However, apart from the highly controversial and contested nature of this work, the conclusions and significance of the "result" which the anon seems to be imputing are not borne out or mentioned there, or elsewhere. Whether Lynn's research constitutes hard scientific fact is something quite debatable, and debated.--cjllw | TALK 12:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime 

message: Hello,
WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.
Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. Don't feel slighted if the article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.
:-->How to assess articles
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner  that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.
Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at  Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also  enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.
Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit  :Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.
Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 20:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Biggest bloody stub I've seen in a long time!  Regards, Ben Aveling 12:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

message: I've just removed some material claiming there's a higher rate of self-representation in the courts in the Indigenous population. After some brief searching I can't find any statistics on this, all there seems to be readily available are some limited statistics on legal aid (this for example). Does anyone know of any sources on self-representation? --bainer (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-representation 

message: The history section seems too long and deserves its own article.. I was going to call it History of Indiginous Australians or History of Australian Aborigines. I'm not sure what's the most suitable title. Help. Sofeil 22:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: The Mainland Australia section appears to be two sections in one. I'm going to extract materials related to culture and move them to a new section: Culture. Sofeil 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some changes

message: I've grouped several sections together to make the page easier to navigate. --bainer (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This vote will close within one week, at 01:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please vote on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
=====Support=====
* Support, however the Torres Strait Islander references would have to be moved to the Torres Strait Islander article, as the TS Islanders are rarely grouped under Australian Aboriginals. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments:
*I've heard the plural most commonly formed as Aboriginals, not Aborigines. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *For the purposes of this poll those who believe the correct title should be "Australian Aborigines" or "Australian Aborginals" should probably vote "Support". Zarbat 06:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Is there any way we can setup a 3-way poll? Zarbat 06:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Probably something like "indicate which name you prefer" would do. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Discussion consists of more than just you proposing the move. Please don't start any more "votes" without discussion first. --bainer (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:VIE is an essay. WP:NC(CN) is a policy. I see no reason why a discussion and a vote can't exist simultaneously.  +Hexagon1 (t) 03:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming conventions are guidelines, not policies. This means that they are "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Even if you want to apply the guideline that you mention, you still have to show that the exact wording you suggest is in more common usage. "Indigenous Australians" is used by Indigenous people themselves, government and other official sources (unless they use the longer phrase "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders"), and academia. And if you really want to follow these guidelines to the letter, the guideline you mention says that unless there is disagreement about the scope of the article, the most accurate title should be used. This article deals with all the indigenous peoples of Australia, and as such, the only applicable terms are "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people" (less commonly used), or "Indigenous Australians" (more commonly used). --bainer (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say in my personal experience I've come across "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" more often than "Indigenous Australians". But I lack expertise in the area, and I'm prone to error as a human, so I can't say anything authoritatively. Could you back-up your statement that the aboriginal people prefer the term "Indigenous Australian"? Has any majority survey been done into this area? +Hexagon1 (t) 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, that is irrelevant. This article should be located at Australian aboriginals due to WP:NC(CN). As much as I dislike that policy, it is currently a policy of the English Wikipedia. I quote: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?".  Australian Aboriginal is by far the most common name, used by the media, the government (which uses it alongside indigenous at about equal proportions) as well as the general populace. I believe it also to be a correct term, and saying "Many indigenous people find "Aborigine" patronising and don't want it used" is misleading, as no general poll on the issue has been conducted that I am aware of and you are most likely basing that on personal experience with a few Aboriginals. I've also reopened the poll. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well a simple Google search shows "Indigenous Australians" is by far more common than "Australian Aboriginals", so I'm not sure what makes you think it should be the other way around. Zarbat 05:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google is prone to ignorance, as I stated above, I have encountered the term "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" far more often than "Indigenous Australian", but that's just me, not sure about others. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yet, you have not presented evidence for your belief that they prefer to be called indigenous, despite my numerous requests for it. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What rock has Hexagon been hiding under for the last decade? Has he heard of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs? The Indigenous Portal? The Indigenous Times? Indigenous Australia? The WA Department of Indigenous Affairs? The AIHW Indigenous Australia service? I could go on and on. This is now the standard terminology for non-indigenous Australians (like Hexagon and I) when referring to indigenous Australians. There is no other generally accepted term, certainly not "Aborigine" (which is widely disliked) or "Aboriginal" (which can't be used as a noun). Adam 13:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't prove that the aboriginal people prefer to be called "indigenous", it proves that the federal and WA governments sometimes use that term. +Hexagon1 (t) 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least two of those links have nothing to do with a government. In conducting an extremely unscientific survey (survey size of four) in Perth on 9 November 2006 while travelling on a bus, it appears there is no consensus whatsoever amongst the people themselves, although they refer to themselves as "blackfellas" or "Nyungar" (note, no s). In parts of NSW I've heard "Koori" being used any time you'd expect to hear a descriptor, and the term's even been misapplied in other parts of the country to mean "Aboriginal" more broadly, but only correctly applies in south-eastern Australia. One of the broad problems we have here is that we're talking about hundreds of different groups who see themselves as distinct from each other in many ways, and indeed are in most senses. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehm, you'll excuse me for not listening to the results of your bus-survey when writing this encyclopaedia... :D While your survey shows interesting results about the terms ""blackfellas", "Nyungar", and "Koori", it doesn't actually relate much to the move request above. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is the Aboriginal Australian flag, which represents Aboriginal Australian people, and the Torres Strait Islanders flag, which represents Torres Strait Islanders. That doesn't change the fact that all the indigenous peoples of Australia are collectively known as Indigenous Australians (or if you like the less common, longer version, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people). --bainer (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Out of interest, why are the two separate cultures (Torres Strait Islanders and Australian Aboriginals) grouped here under the term Indigenous Australians? I must say that in all my years I have never heard the term Indigenous Australians used to refer to these groups. Even the Federal government will ask if you are "aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander" in their forms and questionnaires, and I remember that university competitions ask the same. This term appears to be coined by someone not from Australia unfamiliar with the situation regarding this issue there. +Hexagon1 (t) 20:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: Indigenous Australians → Australian Aborigines — See discussions here and here.  --Zarbat 01:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This vote will close within one week, at 01:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please vote on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
=====Support=====
* Support, however the Torres Strait Islander references would have to be moved to the Torres Strait Islander article, as the TS Islanders are rarely grouped under Australian Aboriginals. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments:
*I've heard the plural most commonly formed as Aboriginals, not Aborigines. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *For the purposes of this poll those who believe the correct title should be "Australian Aborigines" or "Australian Aborginals" should probably vote "Support". Zarbat 06:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Is there any way we can setup a 3-way poll? Zarbat 06:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Probably something like "indicate which name you prefer" would do. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Discussion consists of more than just you proposing the move. Please don't start any more "votes" without discussion first. --bainer (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:VIE is an essay. WP:NC(CN) is a policy. I see no reason why a discussion and a vote can't exist simultaneously.  +Hexagon1 (t) 03:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming conventions are guidelines, not policies. This means that they are "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Even if you want to apply the guideline that you mention, you still have to show that the exact wording you suggest is in more common usage. "Indigenous Australians" is used by Indigenous people themselves, government and other official sources (unless they use the longer phrase "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders"), and academia. And if you really want to follow these guidelines to the letter, the guideline you mention says that unless there is disagreement about the scope of the article, the most accurate title should be used. This article deals with all the indigenous peoples of Australia, and as such, the only applicable terms are "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people" (less commonly used), or "Indigenous Australians" (more commonly used). --bainer (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say in my personal experience I've come across "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" more often than "Indigenous Australians". But I lack expertise in the area, and I'm prone to error as a human, so I can't say anything authoritatively. Could you back-up your statement that the aboriginal people prefer the term "Indigenous Australian"? Has any majority survey been done into this area? +Hexagon1 (t) 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Please vote on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
=====Support=====
* Support, however the Torres Strait Islander references would have to be moved to the Torres Strait Islander article, as the TS Islanders are rarely grouped under Australian Aboriginals. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * Support, however the Torres Strait Islander references would have to be moved to the Torres Strait Islander article, as the TS Islanders are rarely grouped under Australian Aboriginals. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: * The suggested name is utterly incorrect. "Australian Aborigines" is never used by Aboriginal people themselves, or in academia, or by government and other official sources. "Aboriginal Australians" would be the acceptable form. In any event, neither of those terms are applicable to this article since it deals with both Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. Only two terms are used in this scope, "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people", or "Indigenous Australians". Using any other term is inaccurate. --bainer (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: :Add any additional comments:
*I've heard the plural most commonly formed as Aboriginals, not Aborigines. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *For the purposes of this poll those who believe the correct title should be "Australian Aborigines" or "Australian Aborginals" should probably vote "Support". Zarbat 06:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Is there any way we can setup a 3-way poll? Zarbat 06:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Probably something like "indicate which name you prefer" would do. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Discussion consists of more than just you proposing the move. Please don't start any more "votes" without discussion first. --bainer (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:VIE is an essay. WP:NC(CN) is a policy. I see no reason why a discussion and a vote can't exist simultaneously.  +Hexagon1 (t) 03:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming conventions are guidelines, not policies. This means that they are "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Even if you want to apply the guideline that you mention, you still have to show that the exact wording you suggest is in more common usage. "Indigenous Australians" is used by Indigenous people themselves, government and other official sources (unless they use the longer phrase "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders"), and academia. And if you really want to follow these guidelines to the letter, the guideline you mention says that unless there is disagreement about the scope of the article, the most accurate title should be used. This article deals with all the indigenous peoples of Australia, and as such, the only applicable terms are "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people" (less commonly used), or "Indigenous Australians" (more commonly used). --bainer (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say in my personal experience I've come across "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" more often than "Indigenous Australians". But I lack expertise in the area, and I'm prone to error as a human, so I can't say anything authoritatively. Could you back-up your statement that the aboriginal people prefer the term "Indigenous Australian"? Has any majority survey been done into this area? +Hexagon1 (t) 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This matter was discussed at length the last time the article was moved and I am firmly opposed to reopening this discussion, particularly at the instigation of an anonymous person who has apparently been banned for disruptive behaviour at other articles. The fact is that "indigenous Australians" is now the generally accepted term. Not everyone likes it, but it creates fewer problems than any other. Please do not reopen this question, which will involve further weeks of repetitious argument. Adam 08:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that is irrelevant. This article should be located at Australian aboriginals due to WP:NC(CN). As much as I dislike that policy, it is currently a policy of the English Wikipedia. I quote: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?".  Australian Aboriginal is by far the most common name, used by the media, the government (which uses it alongside indigenous at about equal proportions) as well as the general populace. I believe it also to be a correct term, and saying "Many indigenous people find "Aborigine" patronising and don't want it used" is misleading, as no general poll on the issue has been conducted that I am aware of and you are most likely basing that on personal experience with a few Aboriginals. I've also reopened the poll. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well a simple Google search shows "Indigenous Australians" is by far more common than "Australian Aboriginals", so I'm not sure what makes you think it should be the other way around. Zarbat 05:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google is prone to ignorance, as I stated above, I have encountered the term "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" far more often than "Indigenous Australian", but that's just me, not sure about others. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yet, you have not presented evidence for your belief that they prefer to be called indigenous, despite my numerous requests for it. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What rock has Hexagon been hiding under for the last decade? Has he heard of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs? The Indigenous Portal? The Indigenous Times? Indigenous Australia? The WA Department of Indigenous Affairs? The AIHW Indigenous Australia service? I could go on and on. This is now the standard terminology for non-indigenous Australians (like Hexagon and I) when referring to indigenous Australians. There is no other generally accepted term, certainly not "Aborigine" (which is widely disliked) or "Aboriginal" (which can't be used as a noun). Adam 13:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't prove that the aboriginal people prefer to be called "indigenous", it proves that the federal and WA governments sometimes use that term. +Hexagon1 (t) 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least two of those links have nothing to do with a government. In conducting an extremely unscientific survey (survey size of four) in Perth on 9 November 2006 while travelling on a bus, it appears there is no consensus whatsoever amongst the people themselves, although they refer to themselves as "blackfellas" or "Nyungar" (note, no s). In parts of NSW I've heard "Koori" being used any time you'd expect to hear a descriptor, and the term's even been misapplied in other parts of the country to mean "Aboriginal" more broadly, but only correctly applies in south-eastern Australia. One of the broad problems we have here is that we're talking about hundreds of different groups who see themselves as distinct from each other in many ways, and indeed are in most senses. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehm, you'll excuse me for not listening to the results of your bus-survey when writing this encyclopaedia... :D While your survey shows interesting results about the terms ""blackfellas", "Nyungar", and "Koori", it doesn't actually relate much to the move request above. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is the Aboriginal Australian flag, which represents Aboriginal Australian people, and the Torres Strait Islanders flag, which represents Torres Strait Islanders. That doesn't change the fact that all the indigenous peoples of Australia are collectively known as Indigenous Australians (or if you like the less common, longer version, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people). --bainer (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming article again?

message: Comment by anon user:
:"There was genetic macassan intermixing. This is well recorded in Australian and and world archaeology, but also is still remembered culturally and reflected significantly in ceremoney and art, especially among the dhuwa and yirritja at Groote Eylandt and near Blue Mud Bay."
Hello anon. My original intention was to change all occurances of "Australian Aboriginal" to "Indigenous Australian", but some people have opposed this (see discussions here. So I've proposed this article be moved to "Australian Aborigines" to make things consistent. I understand this is a sensitive issue and that's exactly why I have not voted yet. Now if you have any more questions or comments, feel free to leave a message on my user page (or email me). Thank you, Zarbat 08:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Who Claims There Was No Macassan Intermixing?"

message: I am not going to get blocked under 3R for rvting the anon troller again, someone else can have a go now. I have asked an admin to block him/her. Adam 05:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need Adam. Remove all their comments. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. They're banned for one year. -- Longhair\talk 05:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous unsigned trolling

message: The article says this claim needs references: "The historical record tends to favour distinct and widespread evidence of cannibalism in Indigenous communities."
I want to provide these following sources but I do not know how to include them in the article. Can a fellow wikipedian help me please?
(My research was pretty good but if anybody succeeds in refuting any of these sources then we can just take out that source and leave the rest until they are refuted, if they are refuted.)
(Removed piece from hate site as per notice on main talk page, 10 November 2006 - check of history on this edit will show original text. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 14:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be argued that all of the above sources are POV. We are not here to "refute sources", we are here to decide what should go into an encyclopaedia, which fundamentally comes down to the publishing of verifiable facts. With regards to the veracity of these sources, I am aware of actual scientific studies done, complete with peer review, in the earlier part of last century which "proved" that Aboriginals were in fact a species of animal, and there was even a request from a European museum at that time to receive a stuffed specimen. I've unearthed sources from the 1930s-40s that suggest that newspapers (same ones that were printing pictures of the 1905 revolution in Russia describing Bolshevik Communists shooting on their people in a very different revolution 12 years later, with the heading "And Lang Calls This Bunk!") were promoting such views and paying researchers as columnists. Gives you a whole new eye on the sort of stuff Media Watch uncovers today - it's nothing on the old days when it comes to editorialism. As such I don't think that it falls within the realm of Wikipedia to document anything more than that such claims were made during the time period, and not offer any view one way or the other as to whether they were true unless and until some real evidence emerges. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with aboriginal cannibalism sources 

message: Some futurists look at figures available today and predict that aboriginal assimilation is inevitable. They point in particular to the urbanisation rate of 75%, the exogamy rate of 69% and the fact that a majority of people who idenitfy as Australian Aborignies in the census are part bloods.
Should we discuss this in the article?
124.183.172.88 04:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a verifiable (i.e. ABS) source for this information (the percentages given), one can state the facts as verified. However speculation as to what *may* happen falls outside of the bounds of Wikipedia's scope. In Wikipedia, WP:V applies, and I quote: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It is not possible to verify a speculation, by definition. Many things over the years have been claimed to be inevitable and subsequently proven otherwise. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 20:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aboriginal assimilation 

message: The same discussion that was previously archived has been brought up again and again. I've now removed it completely after discovering where those users have been obtaining their "sources" about cannibalism: the selection of quotes has been copied wholesale from this page, on the Heretical website, belonging to white supremacist and neo-Nazi Simon Sheppard, and filled with various delightful pieces of original research. I think it's safe to completely discount this site in terms of it being a reliable source for anything other than Sheppard's opinion.
If people really want to write some content about cannibalism in Australia, based on real academic sources, they are more than welcome to do so. But I think we've reached the point where comments in the same vein as the ones archived will simply be removed. --bainer (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed discussion again