![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Added a language classification. This classification is tentative and evolving, better researched for some families than for others, and I'm no expert. Some good linguists don't even accept the validity of Pama-Nyungan, so feel free to expand on it. kwami 05:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to change the section titled 'Phonetics' to 'Phonetics and phonology' and insert the subsection name 'Segmental inventory' immediately after. Might be a bit pedantic, but I think it's clearer and provides slots for the clean addition of more info later on. Dougg 06:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Where do you find Garawa as a branch of Pama-Nyungan. The Ethnologue does not have that classification. Imperialguy
Imperial guy, I see you've been bringing the names into line with the often screwy Ethnologue spelling. I don't think there's any good reason to do this; when grammars are published on these languages, for example, Ethnologue is not followed. It's easy enough to search Ethnologue with alternate spellings, and will be useful to our audience to use a more standardized spelling system, such as the vowel letters u a i rather than oo u ee, etc. kwami 04:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, when adding languages, please make the link to the language. It's getting a bit tedious correcting all those links! Thanks. kwami 04:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, what's the point of listing every Australian language? We can simply link to Ethnologue. Unless we are going to do a better job than Ethnologue, there's no point in a full classification. And unless we list all the spelling alternates, our readers will still have to go to Ethnologue to find the language they're interested in. Meanwhile we've got a huge list of empty links that are worse than useless, for the clutter makes the classification hard to follow. Far better to list a couple of the more prominent languages from each family, or maybe each subfamily. kwami 05:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm the one (or one of the one's) who's been adding to the list of language names. I agree with the above who says that it is useful. I'd hope that we can eventually have a separate article for each language with more info than Ethnologue tries to include (which is fairly minimal). So, assuming it's ok, I'll keep adding to the list, as well as trying to create articles for them to link to. Dougg 01:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Theres an article on Ngunnawal people which includes the ngunnawal language, not sure where it should go in this article?? Cfitzart 04:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
This is largely a result of a concerted effort by past Australian governments to eradicate Aboriginal culture and languages
Were these policies instigated before or after Federation? Isn't it possible some were began by the British before this? — Hippietrail 13:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
This policy was simply a localised implementation of British policy in other areas such as Ireland, Scotland and Wales where they attempted to enforce British culture through outlawing local language and culture -- Ga rr ie 00:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
hey, does anybody know about the numbers of people speaking Victorian aboriginal languages. Yorta Yorta seems to be the only language partially intact. any information would be helpful plz email doms_bakk@hotmail.com abt anything. Dom Domsta333 12:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Try getting in touch with the Victorian Aboriginal Corporation for Languages (VACL):
http://www.vaclang.org.au/.
Dougg
22:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no expertise in languages; just an interested reader. I haven't seen any mention on Wiki of any written forms of Aboriginal language. Does this mean there are none!? I'm not talking about phonetic spelling of Aboriginal words. I mean--did (do) the Aborigines have any kind of written language using their own "alphabets"? AndrewAllen 24 February 2006
Probably every Australian Aboriginal language that has speakers has had an orthography developed for it. In all cases that I'm aware of, as Jiminy Krikkitt says, these have used the Roman alphabet (and these are phonemic, not phonetic), but sometimes with various extensions by diacritcs, or use of extra symbols (sometimes borrowed from the IPA). If by 'their own alphabets?' you mean to ask if they have developed their own alphabet before the Roman alphabet arrived in Australia the answer is no. But this is hardly surprising as the idea of the alphabet has probably only been invented once, several thousand years ago. Dougg 08:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it's best to have orthography details with individual language articles. But yes, I guess it would be worthwhile to put something in Australian Aboriginal languages saying that it's always the Roman alphabet used for Australian language orthographies. Dougg 01:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've put in a brief para on orthography, along with a small table giving some examples. If you think it's useless let me know how it could be improved. If you think it's ugly, please feel free to clean it up! Dougg 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I've got some problems with the second paragraph as it stands. For a start, while it's hard to count languages it's pretty well impossible to count dialects, so I think it's best to stick to numbers of languages rather than including highly speculative dialect numbers: it's usually said that there were about 260 languages in Australia before 1800 (there are a number of sources that can be cited on this). I also think that all remaining languages are rightly considered highly endangered, although it is true that a small number (20 or so) are still being passed on to children. Dougg 00:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia articles have "motherhood-type" statements such as "marayong means emu", "murrumbidgee means big river", etc.
Is there a person or project I can come to with questions about providing a real refernce for some of these statements (where they are correct) - I am all for outing "mythological aboriginal word meanings" if Wikipedia is getting it wrong but I don't know where to look. I see that quite a few of the articles are disputed on talk pages - heatedly but in a style that does not encourage participation in cleaning up the mistakes. I would like to overcome some of these issues but I need to know where to look or who to ask for confirmation etc.
Do any of the languages? dialects? have online lexicons?
Thanks -- Ga rr ie 00:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
While most Australian languages have dictionaries or wordlists (many of which can be found in university libraries) only a few are online. I agree with what you're saying and do try to fact-check these kinds of things when I see them. If you have seen some you think should be checked feel free to list them on my talk page and I'll follow them up. Dougg 01:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
in the introductory section the following is stated "as fact": This is largely a result of a concerted effort by past Australian governments to eradicate Aboriginal culture and languages, through punishment, forced relocations, sterilization, and forced removal of children from their families
Whilst I am not looking for an arguement, only one element is linked to anything - "forced removal of children from their families" has an internal link to the stolen generation article. These are pretty savage claims to be left as "stated facts" regarding Aust Aboriginal Languages. Could someone involved in either the linguistic or cultural side of Aust Aboriginal articles on Wikipedia please link these statements to existing articles where readers can validate/verify these statements are fair comments on history. -- Ga rr ie 00:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This article would really be improved by a map showing where the major language families were in use at the 1800 census (if that's what there was), and another one showing what languages are used currently. -- Ga rr ie 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Trouble is Aboriginal people were on the flora and fauna list until 1967, so they weren't counted in the census before that. Claire 04:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Australian Aboriginal English currently reads simply like a list of common examples of poor grammer. Could somebody with a hint of understanding and knowledge about linguistics in Australia look at the article and identify why AAE is not simply "poor grammer"? My comments on the talk page there might easily be badly interpreted but if you read the article and "suspend your understanding of linguistics" then I hope you see where I'm coming from. I wouldn't have thought that AAE was an actual identified dialect until I saw the page through WP:Australia. -- Ga rr ie 06:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned by the tone of the second paragraph, which states that the sole reason indigenous languages died out was because they were suppressed by settler authorities. That was of course one reason they died out, but not the sole reason. The other reason is that language serves a social function, communication between people, and once indigenous people no longer lived in traditional communities, having a multitude of languages spoken by only a few thousand people each no longer served that purpose, so they stopped using them. This has happened even in places where governments have actively tried to maintain languages - Irish being the obvious example. Socially mobile people don't like living in linguistic ghettoes, no matter how desirable other people may think it is that they should do so. The paragraph also assumes that it is a good thing that indigenous communities in remote areas go on speaking indigenous languages. This is an opinion, and a contested one. There are plenty of people who think that the interests of these communities would be much better served if they became English-speaking and integrated into the wider Australian society. I would like to see this paragraph phrased in a more neutral tone. Adam 12:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a poll here that would (hopefully) end all this "Indigenous" vs. "Aborigine" controversy. Feel free to vote. Zarbat 09:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
In the Phonetics and Phonology section, some spelling system is being used where IPA definitely should be used instead.
The quotes around "retroflex" etc. should be removed while you are at it.
Whatever this system is -- actual spelling used by speaker, an Australianist phonetic system -- is interesting, but needs to be treated separately in an article on spelling/notation/whatever for Australian.
If you feel you must use this spelling system here -- it certainly needs an explanation and a link to an article with IPA equivalents.
EXAMPLE:
"A language which displays the full range of stops and laterals is Kalkutungu, which has labial p, m; "dental" th, nh, lh; "alveolar" t, n, l; "retroflex" rt, rn, rl; "palatal" ty, ny, ly; and velar k, ng. Yanyuwa has even more contrasts, with an additional true dorso-palatal series, plus prenasalized stops at all seven places of articulation, in addition to all four laterals"
The intro says "The Tasmanian people were nearly eradicated early in Australia's colonial history". Why "nearly", when the article on Tasmanian Aborigine says that they "were the indigenous people of the island state of Tasmania"? Is that because there are today descendants of Tasmanian Aborigines, even though not full-blooded descendants? invenio t c 00:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Sections Internal and Subgrouping should be merged or at least made contiguous. -- 88.73.0.115 ( talk) 17:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is the listing from Ruhlen, to verify that alt spellings & names have redirects. A few are typos, but might be looked up that way. — kwami ( talk) 04:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Edit: full list here. Only red links kept here:
gunbudj (ngunbudj, ≈umbugarla)
guwa (Maric), yanda (Maric), giya (Maric?), yiningay (Maric?), wadjalang (Maric?), gayiri (Maric?), yiman (Maric?)
Not much to do with the Maric langs, but Gunbudj should be taken care of. Can't access AIATSIS right now. — kwami ( talk) 06:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Josephine Flood (2004 p. 234) states that most languages that are not Pama-Nyungan have a relationship with the proto-Australian family in in verb and sound system, of corse there is still major differences. The languages stated as not being related to Pama-Nyungan are the Tiwi language and Djingili language. Would this be a correct assessment? Enlil Ninlil 04:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
86.152.221.121 ( talk) 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This map gives the impression that the Aboriginal languages of Australia are only spoken in Northern Australia. If you look at a map such as this one, this one or this one, one can see that the languages are more spread over Australia rather than grouped in the north. Why are they only showed in the north on the map? -- Lundgren8 ( t · c) 21:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Australian Aboriginal languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This article needs major revision and updating; it does not take into account a lot of recent research from the last 5-10 years. Claire ( talk) 19:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This article should be moved to Indigenous Australian languages - nobody in this country uses the term "Aboriginal" any more. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 19:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not true that "no one" uses the term "Aboriginal" anymore. Indigenous is not a generally accepted term amongst First Peoples in Australia, though it is also often used, particularly in discussions about indigeneity more generally. Some see it as a term of erasure or euphemism. "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" is still preferred and widely used amongst the material I read regularly. Indigenous languages is fine, but the reason for the change is spurious (and not supported by evidence by the original poster). Claire ( talk) 11:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note this is an unpursued move (6 months no reply)
however as it is - there is a parallel usage here in the Australian project - and conversations in the past have ranged over the usage of
as to the veracity of any one usage being the less offensive to those ascribed the various internal australian labels - australian aboriginal seems ok JarrahTree 12:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Added a language classification. This classification is tentative and evolving, better researched for some families than for others, and I'm no expert. Some good linguists don't even accept the validity of Pama-Nyungan, so feel free to expand on it. kwami 05:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to change the section titled 'Phonetics' to 'Phonetics and phonology' and insert the subsection name 'Segmental inventory' immediately after. Might be a bit pedantic, but I think it's clearer and provides slots for the clean addition of more info later on. Dougg 06:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Where do you find Garawa as a branch of Pama-Nyungan. The Ethnologue does not have that classification. Imperialguy
Imperial guy, I see you've been bringing the names into line with the often screwy Ethnologue spelling. I don't think there's any good reason to do this; when grammars are published on these languages, for example, Ethnologue is not followed. It's easy enough to search Ethnologue with alternate spellings, and will be useful to our audience to use a more standardized spelling system, such as the vowel letters u a i rather than oo u ee, etc. kwami 04:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, when adding languages, please make the link to the language. It's getting a bit tedious correcting all those links! Thanks. kwami 04:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, what's the point of listing every Australian language? We can simply link to Ethnologue. Unless we are going to do a better job than Ethnologue, there's no point in a full classification. And unless we list all the spelling alternates, our readers will still have to go to Ethnologue to find the language they're interested in. Meanwhile we've got a huge list of empty links that are worse than useless, for the clutter makes the classification hard to follow. Far better to list a couple of the more prominent languages from each family, or maybe each subfamily. kwami 05:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm the one (or one of the one's) who's been adding to the list of language names. I agree with the above who says that it is useful. I'd hope that we can eventually have a separate article for each language with more info than Ethnologue tries to include (which is fairly minimal). So, assuming it's ok, I'll keep adding to the list, as well as trying to create articles for them to link to. Dougg 01:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Theres an article on Ngunnawal people which includes the ngunnawal language, not sure where it should go in this article?? Cfitzart 04:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
This is largely a result of a concerted effort by past Australian governments to eradicate Aboriginal culture and languages
Were these policies instigated before or after Federation? Isn't it possible some were began by the British before this? — Hippietrail 13:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
This policy was simply a localised implementation of British policy in other areas such as Ireland, Scotland and Wales where they attempted to enforce British culture through outlawing local language and culture -- Ga rr ie 00:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
hey, does anybody know about the numbers of people speaking Victorian aboriginal languages. Yorta Yorta seems to be the only language partially intact. any information would be helpful plz email doms_bakk@hotmail.com abt anything. Dom Domsta333 12:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Try getting in touch with the Victorian Aboriginal Corporation for Languages (VACL):
http://www.vaclang.org.au/.
Dougg
22:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no expertise in languages; just an interested reader. I haven't seen any mention on Wiki of any written forms of Aboriginal language. Does this mean there are none!? I'm not talking about phonetic spelling of Aboriginal words. I mean--did (do) the Aborigines have any kind of written language using their own "alphabets"? AndrewAllen 24 February 2006
Probably every Australian Aboriginal language that has speakers has had an orthography developed for it. In all cases that I'm aware of, as Jiminy Krikkitt says, these have used the Roman alphabet (and these are phonemic, not phonetic), but sometimes with various extensions by diacritcs, or use of extra symbols (sometimes borrowed from the IPA). If by 'their own alphabets?' you mean to ask if they have developed their own alphabet before the Roman alphabet arrived in Australia the answer is no. But this is hardly surprising as the idea of the alphabet has probably only been invented once, several thousand years ago. Dougg 08:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it's best to have orthography details with individual language articles. But yes, I guess it would be worthwhile to put something in Australian Aboriginal languages saying that it's always the Roman alphabet used for Australian language orthographies. Dougg 01:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've put in a brief para on orthography, along with a small table giving some examples. If you think it's useless let me know how it could be improved. If you think it's ugly, please feel free to clean it up! Dougg 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I've got some problems with the second paragraph as it stands. For a start, while it's hard to count languages it's pretty well impossible to count dialects, so I think it's best to stick to numbers of languages rather than including highly speculative dialect numbers: it's usually said that there were about 260 languages in Australia before 1800 (there are a number of sources that can be cited on this). I also think that all remaining languages are rightly considered highly endangered, although it is true that a small number (20 or so) are still being passed on to children. Dougg 00:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia articles have "motherhood-type" statements such as "marayong means emu", "murrumbidgee means big river", etc.
Is there a person or project I can come to with questions about providing a real refernce for some of these statements (where they are correct) - I am all for outing "mythological aboriginal word meanings" if Wikipedia is getting it wrong but I don't know where to look. I see that quite a few of the articles are disputed on talk pages - heatedly but in a style that does not encourage participation in cleaning up the mistakes. I would like to overcome some of these issues but I need to know where to look or who to ask for confirmation etc.
Do any of the languages? dialects? have online lexicons?
Thanks -- Ga rr ie 00:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
While most Australian languages have dictionaries or wordlists (many of which can be found in university libraries) only a few are online. I agree with what you're saying and do try to fact-check these kinds of things when I see them. If you have seen some you think should be checked feel free to list them on my talk page and I'll follow them up. Dougg 01:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
in the introductory section the following is stated "as fact": This is largely a result of a concerted effort by past Australian governments to eradicate Aboriginal culture and languages, through punishment, forced relocations, sterilization, and forced removal of children from their families
Whilst I am not looking for an arguement, only one element is linked to anything - "forced removal of children from their families" has an internal link to the stolen generation article. These are pretty savage claims to be left as "stated facts" regarding Aust Aboriginal Languages. Could someone involved in either the linguistic or cultural side of Aust Aboriginal articles on Wikipedia please link these statements to existing articles where readers can validate/verify these statements are fair comments on history. -- Ga rr ie 00:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This article would really be improved by a map showing where the major language families were in use at the 1800 census (if that's what there was), and another one showing what languages are used currently. -- Ga rr ie 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Trouble is Aboriginal people were on the flora and fauna list until 1967, so they weren't counted in the census before that. Claire 04:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Australian Aboriginal English currently reads simply like a list of common examples of poor grammer. Could somebody with a hint of understanding and knowledge about linguistics in Australia look at the article and identify why AAE is not simply "poor grammer"? My comments on the talk page there might easily be badly interpreted but if you read the article and "suspend your understanding of linguistics" then I hope you see where I'm coming from. I wouldn't have thought that AAE was an actual identified dialect until I saw the page through WP:Australia. -- Ga rr ie 06:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned by the tone of the second paragraph, which states that the sole reason indigenous languages died out was because they were suppressed by settler authorities. That was of course one reason they died out, but not the sole reason. The other reason is that language serves a social function, communication between people, and once indigenous people no longer lived in traditional communities, having a multitude of languages spoken by only a few thousand people each no longer served that purpose, so they stopped using them. This has happened even in places where governments have actively tried to maintain languages - Irish being the obvious example. Socially mobile people don't like living in linguistic ghettoes, no matter how desirable other people may think it is that they should do so. The paragraph also assumes that it is a good thing that indigenous communities in remote areas go on speaking indigenous languages. This is an opinion, and a contested one. There are plenty of people who think that the interests of these communities would be much better served if they became English-speaking and integrated into the wider Australian society. I would like to see this paragraph phrased in a more neutral tone. Adam 12:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a poll here that would (hopefully) end all this "Indigenous" vs. "Aborigine" controversy. Feel free to vote. Zarbat 09:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
In the Phonetics and Phonology section, some spelling system is being used where IPA definitely should be used instead.
The quotes around "retroflex" etc. should be removed while you are at it.
Whatever this system is -- actual spelling used by speaker, an Australianist phonetic system -- is interesting, but needs to be treated separately in an article on spelling/notation/whatever for Australian.
If you feel you must use this spelling system here -- it certainly needs an explanation and a link to an article with IPA equivalents.
EXAMPLE:
"A language which displays the full range of stops and laterals is Kalkutungu, which has labial p, m; "dental" th, nh, lh; "alveolar" t, n, l; "retroflex" rt, rn, rl; "palatal" ty, ny, ly; and velar k, ng. Yanyuwa has even more contrasts, with an additional true dorso-palatal series, plus prenasalized stops at all seven places of articulation, in addition to all four laterals"
The intro says "The Tasmanian people were nearly eradicated early in Australia's colonial history". Why "nearly", when the article on Tasmanian Aborigine says that they "were the indigenous people of the island state of Tasmania"? Is that because there are today descendants of Tasmanian Aborigines, even though not full-blooded descendants? invenio t c 00:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Sections Internal and Subgrouping should be merged or at least made contiguous. -- 88.73.0.115 ( talk) 17:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is the listing from Ruhlen, to verify that alt spellings & names have redirects. A few are typos, but might be looked up that way. — kwami ( talk) 04:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Edit: full list here. Only red links kept here:
gunbudj (ngunbudj, ≈umbugarla)
guwa (Maric), yanda (Maric), giya (Maric?), yiningay (Maric?), wadjalang (Maric?), gayiri (Maric?), yiman (Maric?)
Not much to do with the Maric langs, but Gunbudj should be taken care of. Can't access AIATSIS right now. — kwami ( talk) 06:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Josephine Flood (2004 p. 234) states that most languages that are not Pama-Nyungan have a relationship with the proto-Australian family in in verb and sound system, of corse there is still major differences. The languages stated as not being related to Pama-Nyungan are the Tiwi language and Djingili language. Would this be a correct assessment? Enlil Ninlil 04:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
86.152.221.121 ( talk) 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This map gives the impression that the Aboriginal languages of Australia are only spoken in Northern Australia. If you look at a map such as this one, this one or this one, one can see that the languages are more spread over Australia rather than grouped in the north. Why are they only showed in the north on the map? -- Lundgren8 ( t · c) 21:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Australian Aboriginal languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This article needs major revision and updating; it does not take into account a lot of recent research from the last 5-10 years. Claire ( talk) 19:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This article should be moved to Indigenous Australian languages - nobody in this country uses the term "Aboriginal" any more. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 19:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not true that "no one" uses the term "Aboriginal" anymore. Indigenous is not a generally accepted term amongst First Peoples in Australia, though it is also often used, particularly in discussions about indigeneity more generally. Some see it as a term of erasure or euphemism. "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" is still preferred and widely used amongst the material I read regularly. Indigenous languages is fine, but the reason for the change is spurious (and not supported by evidence by the original poster). Claire ( talk) 11:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Note this is an unpursued move (6 months no reply)
however as it is - there is a parallel usage here in the Australian project - and conversations in the past have ranged over the usage of
as to the veracity of any one usage being the less offensive to those ascribed the various internal australian labels - australian aboriginal seems ok JarrahTree 12:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)