This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 15 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
If we are talking about "Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander" people, then perhaps we need a different title for this article, or divide it into two. TSI folk are not Aboriginal. They are descended from different ethnic and cultural groups. Perhaps we should fix this. Suggestions? -- Pete ( talk) 23:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Why the hostility? I did read what you linked. Thats why I asked for further input. It says Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Most uses of Aboriginal Elder capitalise the term. I think the difference in understanding is that Aboriginal Elder (the topic of this article) is a specific status that is distinct from an elder (an old or respected person). This status is also distinct from the international uses of elder you mention. The first sentence of this article also says it is usually capitalised. Poketama ( talk) 13:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I've reversed the page move. GoodDay ( talk) 02:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved - Without prejudice, no consensus to move as requested and no clear consensus for any one of the seemingly suitable alternatives—there are MOS and topical alternatives. My recommendation is that a new RM be initiated with one of the specific alternatives as the target title and the ensuing discussion focus like a laser on the suggested target title. Mike Cline ( talk) 14:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Australian Aboriginal elder → Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders – The title of the topic does not cover the whole topic, excluding the Torres Strait Islander Elders that are covered. Poketama ( talk) 03:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky ( talk) 04:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Proposals
or per Michael's notes - replacing 'Elder' with 'elder'.
Evidence
Google results -
These results show that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders is the most common term by far. Elders should be capitalised in the title, as per my comment above ""according to MOS:CAPS only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Most uses of Aboriginal Elder capitalise the term. I think the difference in understanding is that Aboriginal Elder (the topic of this article) is a specific status that is distinct from an elder (an old or respected person). This status is also distinct from the international uses of elder you mention." There is further information from style guides here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Draft_style_guide1 Poketama ( talk) 03:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander E[e]lders. These are two distinct cultural groups and in contemporary usage they are referred to separately. As a contemporary name, "Australian Aboriginal" is inappropriate term when referring to the indigenous cultures of Australia collectively. Trust me, I'm Australian but if there is any doubt, I will provide further evidence. I don't see a need to discuss the other alternatives at this time. On the issue of capitalisation of elder, church elder has a similar cultural significance but we do not capitalise elder in the WP article. Poketama, if you are going to present evidence of sources, it is good form to present links to these searches so that others can confirm your evidence. I know there is a better link and I can't think of it ATM but, per WP:LOTSOFGHITS, search engine results are rarely acceptable as an affirmative argument. Google Scholar can include sources that don't meet WP:RS, so some care must be used there too. Unnamed style guides are not evidence but assertion. WP has its own style. It tends to acknowledge a couple of major style guides (eg CMOS) but government styles in particular carry little weight. Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Draft style guide1 is a draft. It does not have a particular status in this discussion and I also note some inconsistencies. I acknowledge your comment about ngrams but we can refine the search as I did here. It does not support your proposition. I could be convinced but I would need better evidence to support the proposition. Show me the money. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipediabut we also have MOS:JOBTITLES which is part of MOS:CAPS. WP:SSF is a sourced essay which is also relevant. To:
Do you mean the First Nations institutions and committees are not a reliable source because they are involved in the topic?They are not independent and are not suitable to resolve the matter per MOS:CAPS. Also, presenting examples that would support your case is not the same as showing that it is done in a substantial majority of cases (its a statistical thing). How you might convince others? I don't know. I did refine the ngram evidence here in light of your earlier comments. That evidence is reasonably convincing. I was asking if you could make a more convincing case. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
sourcing content for the TSI component might be an issue, if only because Torres Strait Islanders are a small proportion of the total indigenous population (5 - 10%) and specific content will be proportionally less. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.By the same measure, "Torres Strait Islander" creates a recognisable context, that we are referring to an Australian Aboriginal and not some other aboriginal culture. So, while adding "Australian" is more precise, "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder(s)" is already reasonably unambiguous and the additional precision is unnecessary. Per my above, this ngram indicates that when the term Torres Strait Islander is used, it is almost always preceded by Aboriginal and. This ngram would indicate that "Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" is rarely, if ever, used in sources. The guidance WRT concision tells us the title should be
no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.Since there is no ambiguity WRT an article that exists (or is reasonably likely to exist) and no naming convention indicated that would require a less concise name for consistency, I can see no reasonable reason for adding "Australian" to the proposed title: "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder(s)". Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The term Indigenous Australians refers to Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders collectively. And no need for "elder" to be capitalised or plural. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking about this further last night. All of this relates to my original motivation for creating that draft guide as a springboard for discussion about terminology around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia, and I don't think that we should be looking at this article in isolation. What about taking the whole discussion over there, or somewhere where all of the articles with titles relating to these groups can be listed and examined? If we just change this one article, is the same discussion going to keep popping up with each article?
I do think that there are reasonable grounds for distinguishing between what terms are used as article names and those used in the text of the articles (having looked at and quoted those criteria above). I understand and sympathise with Poketama's sentiments about using the longer form for this article, but also see the grammatical problem I've outlined above. While the longer form is preferred, it's not as if "Indigenous Australians" is pejorative or deprecated, hence my slight preference for its use in this title at least.
Skyring (and others): Having a quick scan through our current titles, we have approximately 10 article names beginning "Indigenous Australian(s)". Those beginning "Australian Indigenous" are all either redirects or official names of organisations, the latter including Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet (which incidentally changed its name from National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Clearinghouse in 2000).
Indigenous peoples in Canada also presents a complicated picture, although I don't know if there's anything useful we can take from there. We also need to think about the international audience accessing articles on the Australian topics. It's not easy, this one. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 02:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. This specific move target has no traction. No prejudice against another RM with a different target. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 17:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Australian Aboriginal elder → Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder – A name change for this article is still needed. This is the name that received the most support in the last discussion. Poketama ( talk) 14:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
How exactly does the title of Elder pass on to the next leader of any given tribe, are they elected by tribal council, or does it pass automatically via primogeniture? 203.46.132.214 ( talk) 05:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 15 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
If we are talking about "Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander" people, then perhaps we need a different title for this article, or divide it into two. TSI folk are not Aboriginal. They are descended from different ethnic and cultural groups. Perhaps we should fix this. Suggestions? -- Pete ( talk) 23:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Why the hostility? I did read what you linked. Thats why I asked for further input. It says Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Most uses of Aboriginal Elder capitalise the term. I think the difference in understanding is that Aboriginal Elder (the topic of this article) is a specific status that is distinct from an elder (an old or respected person). This status is also distinct from the international uses of elder you mention. The first sentence of this article also says it is usually capitalised. Poketama ( talk) 13:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I've reversed the page move. GoodDay ( talk) 02:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved - Without prejudice, no consensus to move as requested and no clear consensus for any one of the seemingly suitable alternatives—there are MOS and topical alternatives. My recommendation is that a new RM be initiated with one of the specific alternatives as the target title and the ensuing discussion focus like a laser on the suggested target title. Mike Cline ( talk) 14:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Australian Aboriginal elder → Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders – The title of the topic does not cover the whole topic, excluding the Torres Strait Islander Elders that are covered. Poketama ( talk) 03:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky ( talk) 04:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Proposals
or per Michael's notes - replacing 'Elder' with 'elder'.
Evidence
Google results -
These results show that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders is the most common term by far. Elders should be capitalised in the title, as per my comment above ""according to MOS:CAPS only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Most uses of Aboriginal Elder capitalise the term. I think the difference in understanding is that Aboriginal Elder (the topic of this article) is a specific status that is distinct from an elder (an old or respected person). This status is also distinct from the international uses of elder you mention." There is further information from style guides here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Draft_style_guide1 Poketama ( talk) 03:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander E[e]lders. These are two distinct cultural groups and in contemporary usage they are referred to separately. As a contemporary name, "Australian Aboriginal" is inappropriate term when referring to the indigenous cultures of Australia collectively. Trust me, I'm Australian but if there is any doubt, I will provide further evidence. I don't see a need to discuss the other alternatives at this time. On the issue of capitalisation of elder, church elder has a similar cultural significance but we do not capitalise elder in the WP article. Poketama, if you are going to present evidence of sources, it is good form to present links to these searches so that others can confirm your evidence. I know there is a better link and I can't think of it ATM but, per WP:LOTSOFGHITS, search engine results are rarely acceptable as an affirmative argument. Google Scholar can include sources that don't meet WP:RS, so some care must be used there too. Unnamed style guides are not evidence but assertion. WP has its own style. It tends to acknowledge a couple of major style guides (eg CMOS) but government styles in particular carry little weight. Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Draft style guide1 is a draft. It does not have a particular status in this discussion and I also note some inconsistencies. I acknowledge your comment about ngrams but we can refine the search as I did here. It does not support your proposition. I could be convinced but I would need better evidence to support the proposition. Show me the money. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipediabut we also have MOS:JOBTITLES which is part of MOS:CAPS. WP:SSF is a sourced essay which is also relevant. To:
Do you mean the First Nations institutions and committees are not a reliable source because they are involved in the topic?They are not independent and are not suitable to resolve the matter per MOS:CAPS. Also, presenting examples that would support your case is not the same as showing that it is done in a substantial majority of cases (its a statistical thing). How you might convince others? I don't know. I did refine the ngram evidence here in light of your earlier comments. That evidence is reasonably convincing. I was asking if you could make a more convincing case. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
sourcing content for the TSI component might be an issue, if only because Torres Strait Islanders are a small proportion of the total indigenous population (5 - 10%) and specific content will be proportionally less. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.By the same measure, "Torres Strait Islander" creates a recognisable context, that we are referring to an Australian Aboriginal and not some other aboriginal culture. So, while adding "Australian" is more precise, "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder(s)" is already reasonably unambiguous and the additional precision is unnecessary. Per my above, this ngram indicates that when the term Torres Strait Islander is used, it is almost always preceded by Aboriginal and. This ngram would indicate that "Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" is rarely, if ever, used in sources. The guidance WRT concision tells us the title should be
no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.Since there is no ambiguity WRT an article that exists (or is reasonably likely to exist) and no naming convention indicated that would require a less concise name for consistency, I can see no reasonable reason for adding "Australian" to the proposed title: "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder(s)". Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The term Indigenous Australians refers to Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders collectively. And no need for "elder" to be capitalised or plural. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking about this further last night. All of this relates to my original motivation for creating that draft guide as a springboard for discussion about terminology around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia, and I don't think that we should be looking at this article in isolation. What about taking the whole discussion over there, or somewhere where all of the articles with titles relating to these groups can be listed and examined? If we just change this one article, is the same discussion going to keep popping up with each article?
I do think that there are reasonable grounds for distinguishing between what terms are used as article names and those used in the text of the articles (having looked at and quoted those criteria above). I understand and sympathise with Poketama's sentiments about using the longer form for this article, but also see the grammatical problem I've outlined above. While the longer form is preferred, it's not as if "Indigenous Australians" is pejorative or deprecated, hence my slight preference for its use in this title at least.
Skyring (and others): Having a quick scan through our current titles, we have approximately 10 article names beginning "Indigenous Australian(s)". Those beginning "Australian Indigenous" are all either redirects or official names of organisations, the latter including Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet (which incidentally changed its name from National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Clearinghouse in 2000).
Indigenous peoples in Canada also presents a complicated picture, although I don't know if there's anything useful we can take from there. We also need to think about the international audience accessing articles on the Australian topics. It's not easy, this one. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 02:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. This specific move target has no traction. No prejudice against another RM with a different target. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 17:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Australian Aboriginal elder → Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder – A name change for this article is still needed. This is the name that received the most support in the last discussion. Poketama ( talk) 14:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
How exactly does the title of Elder pass on to the next leader of any given tribe, are they elected by tribal council, or does it pass automatically via primogeniture? 203.46.132.214 ( talk) 05:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)