Talk:Aborigine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aborigine page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aborigine disambiguation

Deleted the subheading " Aborigine also mean's in english "ill bash ya ...removed (is this humour or racism?) " " (sic). --Hotel city 07:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page changed from redirect (Indigenous peoples), to a disambig for Aborigine/Aboriginal...see Talk:Indigenous_peoples#Common_Sense_for_a_Disambiguation --cjllw | TALK 05:10, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Why do we have a aborigine page and a aborigine (disambiguation) page? the disambiguation page doesn't disambiguate anything that isn't already on the aborigine, it is merely less complete and informative. The aborigine page should say "disambiguation" and the current disambiguation page should be removed. If ther are no objections, ill do it soon. --Ballchef 00:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ballchef, the aborigine (disambiguation) pg is a recent creation, and formerly aborigine did have a dab notice on it. See the recent Edit history for some indication; it boils down to a slight disagreement on whether "standard" stylistics ought to be employed here or not. My own personal preference is for this pg (Aborigine) to be flagged as a dab pg, whilst retaining the information it has. A proper article should not be built on this page, since there are already separate articles on the various things which the term "Aborigine" could refer to; nor should this be a simple redirect since there is more than one article it could point to. Aborigine (disambiguation) is only linked to this pg, & I agree it is unlikely to be useful to dab anything as it stands. However, a pg "Aborigine" (without the (disambiguation) bit added) is needed, since many editors will continue to (and have already) created links to it, when they actually meant to link to one of the alternatives listed on the pg. Therefore, unless you go back and change all these Aborigine, aborigines, aboriginal, etc links to aborigine (disambiguation), and continue to monitor future link creation to these pages, I don't think it will help any to use the "aborigine (disambiguation)" page title format.

To put it another way, IMO the "article-name (disambiguation)" pg title standard/format only works when there is a primary article with the title "article-name", and the "article-name(disambiguation)" link is placed at its top and refers to the other, subsidiary meanings. In this particular case, Aborigine will not be expanded as an article on its own merits, and so ought to contain instead the dab references, as most editors cannot be expected to use [[aborigine (disambiguation)] as the explicit link.--cjllw | TALK 01:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CJ. OK, i dont want to expand aborigine, but how about I copy the content of that article and replace the content at aborigine (disambiguation), then redirect aborigine to the dab page. if aborigine redirects, then any pages that link to aborigine will redirect wont they? At the least I will vote to merge the pages for now.

On abother note, I looked at what links here for aborigine, and there are a LOT of pages. I would guess that most of these pages are supposed to link to any one of the three types of aborigines pages, not the aborigine page which is virtually a disambiguation page. that will take a long time. sigh. --Ballchef 04:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any replies, please post at Talk:aborigine (disambiguation) thanks. --Ballchef 04:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"native"?

The intro says "...peoples who are native to a land..." and says "native" twice more. Is this a correct use of the word, or should these say "indigenous", "pre-colonial" or something? Native includes all people born in a place, not just of pre-historic ancestry in that place. --ScottDavis 06:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the 3rd instance of "native" to "indigenous", to avoid over-repetitous usage. The other two instances should be fine. The trick is to provide a definition for Aborigine without using the term itself, and of the terms which are sometimes used in a cognate sense, few of them these days are considered appropriate. "Pre-colonial" does not work (e.g., for Taiwanese Aborigines), and expressions such as "primitive", "stone-age" or "prehistoric" are dated and perjorative to boot. Note that the Native article does distinguish two senses: "native" in the casual (etymological) sense of "having been born in", and "native" as a referral to peoples whose habitation of an area preceded that of Western familiarity and presence in the area (and usually thought of as being tribal-based peoples as well). The latter use does have some colonial overtones, and its usage is often now deprecated, except in a couple of usages where its adoption has persisted (cf. Native Americans). --cjllw | TALK 00:43, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

If the term "native" is used to identify Australian Aborigines as well as the term "indigenous", what term is left to identify people born in Australia of other ethnic origins? I don't identify with the homeland of any of the 30 or so of my immigrant ancestors (mostly in the 1850s and 1860s), especially as some of those migrated to escape religious persecution in the country they came from. --ScottDavis 02:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the particular context of Australia, referring to Australian Aborigines collectively as "natives" (common noun) is not in widespread contemporary practice, as I'm sure you'd be aware. They can be said to be "native to" (adjectival use) the continent, however where adjectives are called for, "aboriginal" or "indigenous" are now the preferred terms. However this article serves only to briefly explain the various senses in which the word "Aborigine" may be encountered (not restrictive to Australia), and where "native" appears it only does so to clarify what is meant, rather than equate the two terms exactly. As far as how best to refer to other non-Aboriginal or TSI peoples in Australia goes, there are a variety of terms and expressions which might be employed, depending on the circumstances: "Native-born Australian", "nth-generational Australian", "Australian of European (or other) descent", etc. Probably just simply "Australian" or "Australian citizen" would do, unless one particularly wanted to highlight ethnic background or descent. Given the wide range and admixtures of ethnic/cultural ancestries which are possible, it's not surprising that there is no universal descriptor. For whatever reasons, Australian society at large has not yet embraced "native Australian" to include all its peoples, even if the expression sometimes is used that way. --cjllw | TALK 04:48, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

The term "native Australian" has meant people born here of foreign ancestry for over a century - see Australian Natives Association for example. It looks like you have a much better understanding of the issues than I do—would the first line be acceptable as something like "...in general the peoples who first occupied a land, ..."? --ScottDavis 05:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When the ANA co-opted "Australian Natives" back in the 19C., it would seem to have been a purposeful act to distinguish themselves from the British, and they no doubt disdained the formula "Colonials". Nowadays, if someone uses the phrase "Australian natives" you're more likely to think of eucalypts and banksias (I suppose we have Don Burke and his ilk to thank for that!). But no matter, anyone is free to use whatever qualifying terminology they like, the only arbiter being whether or not they are unambiguously understood. As far as the use of the word "native" in this article goes, replacing it with "...who first occupied a land" conveys the same sort of sense, with a proviso that not all such groups are necessarily the first inhabitants. Personally I am happy with the current formulation, but I'm certainly not claiming to be a final authority. If you do want to change it, perhaps use "...peoples who are the earlier inhabitants of a land", or something on those lines.--cjllw | TALK 10:05, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

I've had a go at changing it. If it's still not suitable, feel free to fix it further. I don't intend to create/continue a dispute from now on. Thanks for the interesting conversation anyway. --ScottDavis 12:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You want more? -> http://users.orac.net.au/~mhumphry/aborigin.html andrew has no penis, well he did until his girlfriend bit it off.

Wikipedia's Figures inacurrate. Check out the 2001 censes results

[1]

spencer wells

You can try The Journey of man, Deep ancestry or Mapping Human history. El Bab

Australia explanation

I undid the edit by User:OrganicAtom. The term indigenous Australian includes two broad ethnic groups: The Torres Strait Islanders (originally from the Torres Strait Islands and far northern Queensland) and the Australian Aborigines (presently a redirect to Indigenous Australians) which refers to over 300 language groups of the original inhabitants of the rest of the Australian mainland, some adjacent islands, and Tasmania. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Hello. I wanted to know who these aborgnes are. Were these slaves like in America? This page is short and does not tell me who they are. Why were the aborignes in Australia, I am new here in Western Australia. My friends at college did not know/ Vicki R 12:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC) so is keane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.190.203 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name

According to Gillissen (2004): Kulturschock Australien, Bielefeld: Peter Rump, Australian Aborigines/Aboriginals dislike being called Aborigines and prefer always to be referred to by (the principally adjectival form) Aboriginals. From that point of view, the article should redirect from Aborigines to Aboriginals rather than vice versa. -- Jan Hansen, 2-12-2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.17.70 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. The departments of the Australian government, academic institutions, community and social organisations all use the word Aboriginal as both the noun and adjective. The truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as an Aborigine. In other words, the indigenous peoples of Australia are not one. They are different nations which differing (though bgroadly similar) languages, customs, spirituality and technology.--Gazzster (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Aborigine" is an umbrella word used to describe all such folk, no matter how they subdivide themselves or others do it for them. I personally use the term "Aboriginal Australian" to specify Australian aboriginal people rather than the aborigines of (say) Japan or America. I note that this is a disambiguation page - perhaps the OP is unaware of the wider meaning? --Pete (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, many people still use the word aborigine, and it could be noted it is the vulgar, but technically incorrect word. But really, aborigine should redirect to Aboriginal, not the other way around. It looks bad, wouldn't you agree?--Gazzster (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC) THIS DOESN"T HELP ME AT ALL !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.3.13 (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]

References

^ don't use this website

"Caucasian"

There's a link to Caucasian under "Aboriginal Peoples in Europe". To what does this refer? White people in general, or people from the Caucausus? The link goes to a disambiguation page. --... discospinster _talk 00:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal Australian

The term "Aborigine" is not widely used today, but has been until recently. It is not an exclusively colonial term and was in general use throughout the Twentieth Century. Even less so for "Aboriginal Australian", a term widely used by contemporary reliable sources. A quick google of news sources shows many current uses, such as this one from the ABC. --Pete (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pete - the note was about the term "Aborigine", as the page is about Aborigine. The length of time since it has been deprecated may be debated (pretty sure it's not been used in official sources I've been in Australia), but it is definitely not acceptable use today (per my draft guide, which I think you've had a look at?). Aboriginal Australians is of course acceptable - it's the article title. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I take your point but the fact is that "Aborigine" is in fact still in use today

NAIDOC stands for National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee. Its origins can be traced to the emergence of Aboriginal groups in the 1920′s which sought to increase awareness in the wider community of the status and treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. - NAIDOC history

The current use of the term "Aborigine" and "Aboriginal" is widespread in all communities, including Aboriginal Australian contexts. A google search yields thousands of mentions, covering every conceivable usage. --Pete (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] 't use this website

[1]