![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Guideline for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples terminology Be conscious of the unique, diverse and distinct identities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and understand the use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is as a collective name. Collective names used to describe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples:
Although "Indigenous Australians" is in common use, and is used to encompass both Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people, many First Nations Australians feel the term diminishes their identity and should be avoided; however, where the word "Indigenous" forms part of an acronym to describe entities, organisations, or government departments the use is acceptable. When used, the words Indigenous, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, First Nations, First Peoples, and First Australians are capitalised. Note: Never use the collective name "Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander" peoples as it misrepresents the identity of Torres Strait Islander peoples as not being the original inhabitants of islands in the Torres Strait. Self-identifying terms:
This is not an exhaustive list Language that can be discriminatory or offensive and should be avoided:
This is not an exhaustive list Note: It is acceptable to use abbreviations in your communications when they form part of an acronym, a web address or an organisation (e.g. AIATSIS, NAIDOC, www.atsi.org.au). Using an acronym or abbreviation to describe a race of people can be offensive and discriminatory. For further information, please refer to: Terminology can change over time and, where possible, it is best practice to find out what the preferred term is from the respective Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander group or individual you are referring to. For further guidance, please see the Australian Government Style Guide |
The absence of an article specifically on Australian Aborigines, who in fact exist as a legal class/category in Australian law .. was recently discussed here .. following which it was found to be useful and necessary to initiate this stub. Bruceanthro ( talk) 15:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Notes for proposed narrative:
1898': Colonial Delegates meet at Conventions to draft a consitution for the new Commonwealth [1]:
"The Aborigines .. surfaced in the endless debates surrounding the population quota that would govern the distribution of seats for the House of Representatives and the proposed Commonwealth’s rights to make laws that would guarantee a White Australia. As Edmund Barton rather patiently explained to Isaac Isaacs at the Melbourne Convention in 1898, the quota for each electorate was established after the number of Indigenous people (along with ‘aliens not naturalised’) had been subtracted from the total population. (Debates 1898, 4, 713-4). Finally, it was decided to exclude Indigenous Australians from any population count used for either the financial or electoral purposes included in the constitution. And to handle the rather vexed question of the Commonwealth’s power to legislate on matters of race and immigration, the Aborigines were excluded from the proposed section. These decisions were enshrined in Section 51 and Section 127 of the new constitution."(Page 3)
1910: Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics seeks to estimate the size of the Australian Aboriginal population, at time of decentenial population census
[1]
1925: Conference of Commonwealth Statisticians recommends, and Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics announces annual census
[1]
For two decades Aboriginal population figures were collected annually by Aboriginal administors (often patrol officers and policemen) classifiying people as full blood or half-caste [1]
1945 Conference of Commonwealth and State Statisticians recommended, and Aborignal population figures ceased to be collected [1]
1967: The 1967 Referendum changed section 127 of the Constitution to allow Aboriginal people to be included in official Census population counts [2]
1971: The 1971 Censuses asked each indigenous person's racial origin [3].
1976: The 1976 Censuses asked each indigenous person's racial origin [4]
1981: Since the 1981 Census the word 'racial' has been dropped from the indigenous status question [5].
1996: The 1996 Census was the first Census to allow people's origins to be recorded as both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander; prior to this only one or the other could be recorded [6].
Bruceanthro (
talk) 13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Bruceanthro (
talk) 11:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The following has been cut and pasted from the article page .. being a new section discussing a DNA project investigating Australian Aboriginal 'racial' heritage ... Does not seem to fit in its current form, but does seem to invite section on genetics & Aboriginality .. which might make mention of research of this kind and include external links. What do you think?? Bruceanthro ( talk) 14:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Project Cultural Sensitivity WARNING
In accordance with established Cultural Protocols - and to ensure that any disclosure of information contained herewith is consistent with the views and sensitivities of Australia's Indigenous peoples - ALL Indigenous Aboriginal Persons are WARNED that the AboriginalTribesAustralia-DNA-Project
[5] may contain images and include the names of deceased persons which might cause sadness or distress, particularly to the relatives of these people.
Project Goals
The Goals of the AboriginalTribesAustralia-DNA-Project [6] are to:
1. Look for, and identify any patterns or similarities between Haplogroups and sub-Clades in an endeavour to find and confirm any distant relatedness between Participants.
2. Verify the relatedness and migratory paths of families, and where possible to identify their Patriarch/Matriarch [Common - or Alpha - Male/Female] from whom all Participants herald from.
3. To identify and confirm the Indigenous Aboriginal Australian Ancestry and the traditional hereditary affilation of participants and their: Families; Hordes; Clans; Tribes and the Tribal Nations encompassing same - i.e. Kinship Bonds.
Indigenous Australians are a mixed ethnic group, as with all indigenous people, through out the world. The use of class to describe indigenous Austalians is not acceptable because the common use of class, takes several different aspects into account, brb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.229.8 ( talk) 13:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The following unreferenced material has been cut and paste from the main article .. being dimensions of the legal class or category of indigenous peoples (plural) in Australia .. which might be expanded upon (recalling the main article is here:
Aboriginal genetic traits
People of Aboriginal descent have been noted as having shorter life spans than that of other humans.
The Fight for Australia
Aboriginal descendants claim Australia as their home land, They claim Australia as an indigenous country to call their own, however recent studies have indicated that this may not be true. While some people claim that Australian Aborigines and Europeans evolved from the same wave of African migrants that went out of Africa more than 50,000 years ago. This research led by Toomas Kivisild of the University of Cambridge revealed the same founders for both racial types. Other scientific studies have shown the same information with only a slight deviation proven by DNA that Australia's Aborigines were formed from a single group of migrants who left Africa about 55,000 years ago.
Unemployment rates
Data on income source in show the changes in employment status of the Indigenous population. A large proportion of Indigenous respondents main income source in 2002 (39% compared to 33% in 1994). Government pensions and allowances was the main income source for 50% of Indigenous respondents in 2002 (compared to 55% in 1994). there are now 500,000 Aboriginals within Australia, each year costing Tax payers 340 Billion Australian Dollars.
I have added the expand tag: This article should be about Australian Aborigines, not a discussion about the politically way the name them---which is all the article is at the moment. 88.77.152.180 ( talk) 03:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not Australian, but to provide a bit of an outsider's perspective: I question the choice of images. Three of the four seem to be athletes, and the other person shown (Ernie Dingo) is a TV personality whose page talks a fair bit about his love of rugby and such. Maybe a little more variety? Some famous academics, scientists, or authors? -- GenkiNeko ( talk) 21:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to be a short article only about the legal definition of this class. Why not fold it into the Indigenous Australians article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.182.112 ( talk) 11:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
With regard to my edit that was reverted, I find the hatnote at the top of this article convoluted and overlinked. Quoting from WP guidelines, "hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself". Applied to this article, it means that the hatnote is not the place for explaining what 'class' means in philosophy (see Extraneous links), also considering that 'class' is already wiki-linked right in the opening sentence. Equally inappropriate is the use of two words ("identified and defined") where one would be plenty - if needed at all. Is there a good reason why this article should deviate from the guidelines? -- Giuliopp ( talk) 22:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
That's better now. -- Giuliopp ( talk) 22:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Have cut and pasted the following from the article, along with suggestion that these sections be started and/or more comprehensively discussed and completed her .. prior to being put in the article? Bruceanthro ( talk) 04:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Notable Aboriginal Organisations:
Notable Aborigines:
The following notable aborigines have been listed according to the category of their fame, although some (most) should be listed in multiple categories.
The word "Aborigine" is now considered outdated and offensive to many Aboriginal Australians. See here for one of many references backing this up http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/working_with_aboriginal.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexyhex ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
im australian indigenous and the way i see it we have wide variety or terms for different people. my country is big so our mobs have different views on whats the right term i prefer to be called australian indigenous if you are directly addressing me or if your addressing my people(mob) people of bundjalung country aboriginal is an outdated world but not as offensive as other dirogatory words. though to some of us it is considered extremely offensive comparable to the word to define african americans as slaves(i dont wish to write the word) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aonfenrir ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
IgnorantArmies - I think we are on the same wavelength. However, to me the word "explicitly" suggests that there is some sort of specific implication, which I think would be mistaken. The preamble references to "people" refer, indeed, to all the people of the colonies mentioned - including, one might suppose, their "aboriginal natives". Yet, until 1967, those same people were not to be counted in any census, nor therefore would have counted as part of the population of a state for the purpose of assessing its representation in the House. Nor were Aboriginal Australians specifically consulted in framing the Constitution. Indeed, I haven't heard of any Aboriginal Australian being at all involved in the framing process - they were all excluded from it. Would you agree on "specifically mentioned" instead of "explicitly mentioned"? If you would, please feel free to make the change. This matter concerns only the federal constitution - I am thinking of adding, separately, references to the mentions of Aboriginal Australians that have been added into some of the state constitutions. -- Wikiain ( talk) 03:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Douglas nicholls.jpg is
non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the
non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at
File:Douglas nicholls.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the
non-free content review page. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 09:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the population statistic in the infobox didn't align with the source provided. It turns out the figure (670,000) was a rounded amount of 669,881 - the total number of Indigenous Australians (which includes Torres Strait Islanders). I've changed it to the "Aboriginal only" population. I'm not sure if the number listed as "both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" should be added to this figure or not? If so, it would increase it by a further 25,583. -- Chuq (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Should there be a mention of the "Stolen generations" somewhere in the aritcle?
/info/en/?search=Stolen_Generations
216.146.231.6 ( talk) 13:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Dave
Are there more australian aborigenes than Papuan people before colonisation?-- Kaiyr ( talk) 19:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The portrait gallery has been quickly removed by Iryna Harpy, applying the very recently adopted policy WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. While I note the misgivings of some users about the origin of the RfC that has produced this policy, it appears to be a current general policy which has been produced through a huge discussion that came to a clear predominance of view.
So that the present article may be taken forward from this point, I reproduce first the RfC decision and next the gallery in its final form (it had many forms), which may be used as inspiration for including further portraits of notable people at specifically relevant places in the body of the article. (I have done the same with Indigenous Australians.) Wikiain ( talk) 11:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
{{infobox ethnic group
|image =
1st row:
Windradyne,
David Gulpilil,
Albert Namatjira,
David Unaipon,
Mandawuy Yunupingu
2nd row:
Truganini,
Yagan,
Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu,
Bennelong,
Robert Tudawali
There appear to have been some edits confusing indigenous peoples of Australasia. 'Aboriginal peoples' applies to mainland Australia and Tasmania, while ' Torres Strait Islanders' are discussed as 'other' to the mainland tribes. They are an indigenous people, but they are Melanesians more closely related to the indigenous peoples of New Guinea. Torres Strait Islander culture and languages evolved separately to that of mainland 'Aboriginals', so please don't conflate the two. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 21:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Google searched the subject and learned about it, this may be the first ever Aboriginal Australian Republic declared, but it is not recognized by any country nor by Australia. Only 4,000 residents live within the vast self-proclaimed republic (90% are Aboriginal, the rest White European). Most of the land is in northern part of New South Wales with the rest in the southernmost part of Queensland. Adinneli ( talk) 08:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
If you ask me the Aborignal race is a most likely a combination of the Tamilian race of southern India and the African race. If you look at pictures of pure Aboriginal people they look either 100% Indian or 100% African or mix of both. The European DNA presence among some is due to intermingling after European colonization of Australia. Scholars are ignoring the possible fact that Africa, India, and Australia use to be one big land mass. If scholars do a closer DNA study of Aboriginal people on the one that look pure. Thy will most likely have significant DNA traces of Indian and African DNA. - signed by anon IP
Results of an extensive DNA survey of Aboriginal Australians appear in Nature in September 2016. Summary and link: Michael Westaway et al., "DNA reveals a new history of the First Australians", The Conversation 22 September 2016. Users familiar with DNA evidence kindly follow up . Wikiain ( talk) 23:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Since that seems to be what this article is primarily about, a legal term, and not the actual ethnic group itself. Along with that, I'd recommend creating a new article called "Aboriginal Australians" (in the same vein of the "Torres Strait Islanders" article), that actually talks about the ethnic group in question and not a legal term. Chicowales ( talk) 22:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
If the stated goal of this page is to delineate the legal term "Aboriginal Australians", then the article needs to stick to that like
Musca domestica to
faeces. Subsections "Origins", "Health" and "Anarchist Analysis" fall quite obviously outside that rubric. I left "Groups" intact because it's unambiguously NPOV, as well as so others can expand it with historical legal stuff related to specific groups. I'm also deleting some "See also" links that don't relate to this article, and adding others that may be a better fit.
I'm glad to talk with other editors about these changes (especially Indigenous peoples in Australia), but please have the courtesy to talk before you revert. Thanks.
P.S. This article should not even exist in my opinion, but rather be merged into
Indigenous Australians. Should there be a future merger discussion, please count this as one vote in the affirmative!
76.69.155.96 (
talk) 07:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It took me a while to find the information to define the noun we may employ for Aboriginal Australians and think I found it could be Aborigines. If this is correct I find it is missing in the introduction and would like to ask the community if this is correct and if we may use this term and precise it in the introduction.
Proposed introduction :
Aboriginal Australians (or Aborigines from Australia), are legally defined as people who are members "of the Aboriginal race of Australia" (indigenous to mainland Australia or to the island of Tasmania)
or
Aboriginal Australians or Aborigines, are legally defined as people who are members "of the Aboriginal race of Australia" (indigenous to mainland Australia or to the island of Tasmania)
Current introduction : Aboriginal Australians are legally defined as people who are members "of the Aboriginal race of Australia" (indigenous to mainland Australia or to the island of Tasmania)
Thanks for confirming what your thoughts are. — Ludopedia( Talk) 21:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
im Australian indigenous and thats what i prefer to be addressed as — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aonfenrir ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
The section about 'Origins' states: "This study makes Aboriginal Australians one of the oldest living populations in the world and possibly the oldest outside of Africa, confirming they may also have the oldest continuous culture on the planet." I don't see how the latter fact follows from the former. The article linked to this sentence is not really helpful either ("ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS ARE descendents of the first people to leave Africa up to 75,000 years ago, a genetic study has found, confirming they may have the oldest continuous culture on the planet"). Sounds like a sloppy mix-up of genetic and cultural continuity to me. -- 93.224.9.114 ( talk) 15:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
im adding to this so basically the term oldest surviving is referring to our way of living though most of us dont live like our ancestors our culture is passed down by our elders hence our 70 000 year old culture and tales of dreaming(our mythological belief in how the world was created) being the oldest survinig culture in the world and our genetics have remained untouched since 300 years ago for thousands of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aonfenrir ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I note that this is becoming a page for Aboriginal Australians in general and is referred to as such at the top of the info box on the Indigenous Australians page. I see two solutions
Aboriginal Australians are the indigenous people of mainland Australia, Tasmania and some smaller islands. They are distinct from the Torres Strait Islanders, but share many cultural similarities. The time of arrival of the first people to Australia is debated among researchers. However, there is general agreement that it was before 50,000 years ago, the age of the first human remains.... ( Dushan Jugum ( talk) 06:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).
I was tempted to put up a Merge template just to get the discussion going again (although not sure merge is the answer) - but instead posted comment on the the other talk page, hoping that further discussion will evolve and some clean-up follow at some point. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 01:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I've just stuck a Lead rewrite template on the article (if no volunteers I'll get back to it sometime!), because I think that the article is well beyond Start class, but a lead conforming to WP:LEAD, ensuring that all info in the lead is also contained in the article, and moving all citations into the body, would bring it up to at least a C. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 03:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Aborigines are known for their unusually accurate visual memory, which is said to allow them to navigate by direction without getting lost. This may be related to the skill of their trackers. There is also the view that their visual cortex is unusually large and that this may help them to master these skills. Should that be put in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.92.130 ( talk) 10:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Having come across the recently created Aboriginal Australian identity article and putting a bit of effort into its expansion, I then discovered the Terminology section in this article. Now there is a great deal of overlap, but I'm too tired to continue now and might not get back to it for a day or two. Can we please discuss here where and how best to accommodate the information currently contained in both? Ideally, I think that one of the two should contain only a short summary, which should not conflict with any info in the other, so that any future additions happen in one place only. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 07:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Some of the citations in this section seem to refer to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, so more properly belong in the Indigenous health article I think. But there's so much overlap and it is difficult trying to sort out what should stay in the Indigenous Australians or this article, so I'm just noting this for now, and hoping someone else will have a look at it sometime, because it could be a while before I get back to it. (I need to carry on chipping away at the Indigenous Australians article first.) Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 03:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Rachigad: why do think the image of Aboriginal dwellings in Hermannsburg, Northern Territory was taken in South Africa? Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
(sorry I have not placed my question in the right place). The word ″not″ is repeated in the sentence in the third paragraph: ″In a 2001 study, blood samples were collected from some Warlpiri people in the Northern Territory, to study their genetic makeup (which is not not representative of all Aboriginal peoples in Australia). ″ Is this a mistake? If not, to reduce ambiguity, I suggest the sentence be changed to: ″In a 2001 study, blood samples were collected from some Warlpiri people in the Northern Territory, to study their genetic makeup (which is not unrepresentative of all Aboriginal peoples in Australia). ″ Texteditor ( talk) 12:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Please replace the top-level as Australian Aborigine, not Australian Aboriginal which should redirect to Australian Aborigine because it is not proper.
See next item. Australian Aboriginal is not only poor grammar, which would appear to be a deliberate ploy to reflect badly on people whose first language is not or was not English, but it is also more appropriately identified with the term Indigenous Australian, if we were to accept that it has any validity at all. As you will see, that term already has a page on Wikipedia, and it encompasses both the people referred to in English as the Aborigines, as well as other aboriginal peoples and possibly people who ought not be referred to as Aboriginal (I am not going there).
Please do this as a matter of priority, since the current misuse appears harmful and abusive to me. See next item. (Unsigned, IP 121.200.7.183, 2 October 2020)
Hi there, I understand that the term "western" is widely used, but my understanding is that it refers to "European", as in predominantly European countries, or countries colonized by Europeans. I feel that the term Western is both imprecise and somewhat an attempt to disguise the European colonization history. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elintripido ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, wow that was fast. Thanks, and happy that you agree! Cheers, Daniel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elintripido ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I am Australian Indigenous i come from the bundjalung mob of nsw and added a sub category mentioning our cultural beliefs i also mentioned the stolen generation. with us it important no matter what to mention if there is a picture of my people who have passed(died). its extremely disrespectful not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aonfenrir ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I have just made a change to the first paragraph of the lead to make it clearer that this is the sub-article and that the main article (a much longer article) is the one on Indigenous Australians. That's because in common language in Australia, many people would use the term Aboriginal Australians for the entire ethnic groups of people and then be surprised that this article is so short. That's how it was for me anyhow when I first came to this article. The hat note says that as well but is easy to overlook and not easy to grasp. I had made an earlier edit about this as well which was reverted ( Mitch Ames). Hoping that my new proposal is agreeable. EMsmile ( talk) 02:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Editors at this article may be interested in this discussion: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Austhistory99/Indigenous_Australian_Inter-tribal_Wars_and_Violence Cheers Bacon drum 23:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
"The authors concluded that," → "The 2016 study authors concluded that," or "The 2016 study's authors concluded that,"
—DIV (
1.145.43.213 (
talk) 14:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC))
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
can I have access to to edit this page because I have some relevant information that is not in this page, I have sources regarding my information Eezaci ( talk) 01:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
what extant did the aborigines suffer humiliation or marginalization under the British? 197.229.128.96 ( talk) 22:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Since "cultural appropriation" is a sensible issue on a global scale but the controversy on "aboriginality" is not as widely noticed outside of Australia, could someone please verify the picture shown in the Genetics section, titled "Noongar traditional dancers, Perth, Australia"? Unfortunately it seems to lack both context and evidence, so that it may as well have been taken at a number of unrelated occasions (spring break? insensible office party?). It would certainly help if the controversy and the australian take on aboriginal identity were mentioned or linked in the according section and, just a suggestion, the photo perhaps even moved there, since it could display that the aboriginal identity is, indeed, more than skin deep and that people of mixed heritage are met with suspicion and hostility. (Of which I prove the former) 2003:CA:3F1D:6736:2195:E62F:BD97:4E8 ( talk) 17:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Copy/pasting this massive sentence from under the "Genetics" sub-heading.
"Phylogenetic data suggests that an early initial eastern lineage (ENA) trifurcated somewhere in South Asia, and gave rise to Australasians (Oceanians), the indigenous South Asians/Andamanese, and the East/Southeast Asian lineage including the ancestors of Native Americans, although Oceanians, specifically Papuans and Aboriginal Australians, may have also received some geneflow from an earlier group (xOOA), around 2%, as well, next to additional archaic admixture in the Sahul region."
This is a mammoth of a run-on sentence! Would love to split it up a bit myself, but unfortunately I'm not yet confirmed or auto-confirmed. If another editor spots this and is able to go in and break it down into two or even three sentences, it would make it easier to follow. Raccoon Enthusiast ( talk) 15:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Torres Strait Islanders are ethnically and culturally distinct, despite extensive cultural exchange with some of the Aboriginal groups. (failed verification) Because that statement above doesnt fill the criteria of verified citations. Anyone can help this problem? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:40D9:1A4:1AF1:CBC9 ( talk) 16:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
"Torres Strait Islanders are ethnically and culturally distinct, despite extensive cultural exchange with some of the Aboriginal groups." (citation needed)
In the general section. Wheres is the citations that support this quoted text segment? since this page has been semi protected. I want to add citation needed next groups in word. Can some one add the citation needed wordmark to this quoted text segment? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:BDE8:EEBB:A350:1FC7 ( talk) 09:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with Indigenous Australians on 17 February 2023. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was Consensus not to merge. |
Poketama ( talk) 11:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
why torres strait islanders are ethnically distinct from the mainland australian aborigines? Wheres the reason? Wheres the citation to support this statement? Wheres the proof? I hope someone can help this talk section. Correct me if i am wrong. 2404:8000:1027:85F6:ADE4:2821:F176:D24E ( talk) 09:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Theoretically. It needs to be stated as a theory instead of a fact.
"Aboriginal people comprise many distinct peoples who, it is believed, developed across Australia for 65,000+ years." 208.69.184.110 ( talk) 17:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I find it astonishing that no mention is made of any of the unsettling facts about Aboriginal Australians, such as their practices of infanticide and cannibalism, and the constant warfare with their neighbors. All three are widely attested. To wit:
"Infanticide is practiced among all Australian natives." -- p. 235 of The Family Among the Australian Aborigines by Bronislaw Malinowski, Scocken Books, NY 1963
(
Bronisław Malinowski was a important Polish anthropologist.)
"When the Yumu, Pindupi, Ngali, or Nambutji were hungry, they ate small children with neither ceremonial nor animistic motives. Among the southern tribes, the Matuntara, Mularatara, or Pitjentara, every second child was eaten in the belief that the strength of the first child would be doubled by such a procedure." -- p. 200 "The Western tribes of Central Australia: Childhood" by Géza Róheim in the journal The Psychoanalytic Study of Society.
(
Géza Róheim was a highly respected Hungarian-American anthropologist and expert on Aboriginal Australians.)
"Cannibalism existed not only as a part of death and mourning rites, but also in the custom of infanticide." -- Australian Aborigines: Their Life and Culture by Frederick McCarthy, Colorgravure Publications, 1957
(
Fred McCarthy was an eminent anthropologist and archaeologist, and was the founding principal of the
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.)
"Infanticide was the primary means of population control. In theory, infanticide could have been as high as 40% to 50% of all births, and the population could have survived. In actuality infanticide rates were lower, and probably ranged from 15% to 30% of all births." -- p. 88, "Biological and Demographic Components in Aboriginal Australian Socio-Economic Organization" by Aram Yengoyan in the journal Oceania Vol. 43, December 1972)
(Aram Yengoyan was a significant American anthropologist and professor at the University of California, Davis.)
I could easily cite a dozen other such passages by respected anthropologists writing in peer-reviewed journals or in books by legitimate publishers. And it is worth pointing out that, as seen here with Malinowski, Róheim and Yengoyan, many of these authors were not Australian and therefore unlikely to be motivated by a desire to demonize Aboriginal Australians for the benefit of white Australian settlers.
--
Bricology (
talk) 10:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization says it's been suspended. ...Why? Can the info be added to this article? 189.90.68.88 ( talk) 12:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)